Seven Types of Ambiguity - Part Three

[Sarah]

So here we go with week three. We now have the perspective of The Prostitute or Angelique, Angela, Angel.

[Sarah]

I'm not sure what it says about me but I really liked Angelique for the most part. Right up until she was waffling when dealing with the police. Her boyfriend, if he was that, just kidnapped a boy and she's still covering him instead of helping the police. Oh, and the way this section ended made me a bit sick. Why in the world does she believe that sleeping with that cop is actually going to help? But hey, at least he brought his own yogurt. Now I'm going to vomit.

More later :)

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "I'm not sure what it says about me but I really liked Angelique for the most part.... Oh, and the way this section ended made me a bit sick."

You summed up my feelings perfectly, Sarah. When I was reading this section I kept thinking "well, I feel sorry for Angelique too, she seems like a good person wading through some bad circumstances....I wonder what Sarah's take on her is?" lol.

And I also felt sickened by the last paragraph.

Also, there were bits that sounded familiar, like we have been told parts of the same story before, and I kept getting confused by who we heard each part from previously - the psychiatrist or Joe? The story sure gets muddled up in my head trying to keep all the POVs straight, which makes analyzing it more difficult.

[Sarah]

I figured everyone else would be having a hard time with her being a prostitute! I'm glad to see you feel the same. One of the things that I think this author gets really right is that he captures the complexity of humans. We aren't always good or bad like traditional heroes; we're all very morally gray. It's actually fascinating.

I felt like there were some great quotes in this section. Like when Angel says When I tell him that I was only trying to protect him from himself, he tells me that I had no right to interfere with his life. But in truth, I had no right not to. She's right about this. In this particular situation somebody needed to step in.

I was quite horrified by her father. A raving, racist bastard. He was absolutely horrible. And then even when she's forced in to having an abortion, he tells her that she did the right thing for him. His "friendship" towards Suramia seems both sleazy and a complete and total hypocrisy to his reaction to her and Romesh. But Oh no, my father wasn't a racist. It was just that we should stick to our own kind. And these people should stick to theirs. "You see I'm not treating them differently." This man is appalling! I did wonder if this contributed to my compassion towards Angela. And then of course we have that horrible scene where she's raped. Yes, she becomes a prostitute, but overall I really feel sorry for her. And even have a bit of respect that she got out, even if it's in a direction I would not want to go. Is there anything that would drive anyone discussing this to prostitution? I imagine in the right set of circumstances I would, but it would have to be pretty extreme.

I really liked the scene where she met Simon (and did her B-grade impersonation of a prostitute!!!). This whole scene was very touching and made me like Simon even more. How can I possibly still want to like Simon? It's weird. And I love the way that he hails a taxi to get away from his father. And why does he do this? Because it's impossible to hire a helicopter :) Completely hilarious response.

Angel repeatedly refers to her "inconvenience". I'm looking at page 180 right now and I think this is the third time she mentions it. Does anybody know what she's talking about? She does refer to her bladder "inconvenience" (198) at one point but this is awhile after she starts talking about it.

The scene with the ophthalmologist was truly strange. Can you imagine him asking you to run quickly around the block twice? This was just weird and I would be so uncomfortable doing this. All leading to the resulting MS diagnosis. This is horrible for her. It would be horrible for anyone, but I think she needs to find a new line of work. I felt so bad for her when she lost control of her bladder while being interrogated by the police. That would be so humiliating. I could have died laughing when she was waiting to be interrogated and the uniformed cop says "What's a nice girl like you doing mixed up in all this?" I thought "Did he really say that?" What a horrible cliché!

I thought it was interesting when Simon was in prison he talked about how people who have committed crimes against children are the lowest on the hierarchical ladder in prison. It was interesting to me because I didn't know that this happened outside of the U.S.

About Joe: He had to keep being someone's husband and someone's dad, otherwise he would be Simon This is both interesting and insightful.

[Sarah]

One other thing that I wanted to get in here but in a separate section. While they're waiting for police, Simon uses the quote "Emotions are not skilled workers". Then he says Attributed to a man who never said it, by two men who wrote it and then pretended they were a third man who never existed. I happen to have just read about this, although I have no idea where. It was a hoax perpetrated against modern poetry and specifically the magazine Angry Penguins The authors of the poetry created poems by using random lines from multiple books and then wrote in to the magazine pretending to be a woman named Ethel Malley who supposedly discovered the poems of her brother who had passed away. After they submitted the poems, the magazine declared them brilliant and Ern Malley and were discredited in a huge way. The reason I think this is important is that the perpetrators were from Melbourne and the magazine was from Adelaide, Angela's home town. I think this is important but I have no idea why.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: " I happen to have just read about this, although I have no idea where."

It was earlier in the book that this story is told to us. But now I can't remember which section we heard about it. I think the first section, perhaps? I remember really liking the quote when I first read it.

[Sarah]

Oh! I could not remember where. It should be in the psychiatrist's section. I would have remembered if it was just last week. That's really been bugging me. Any idea what the significance is?

[Linda]

I just looked it up - yeah, it's at the end of the psychiatrist's section. So the psychiatrist is telling us what Simon told him of the same scene we just read.

To me, the quote says something about how we perceive things to be. We don't all have the same remembrance of the same event because we each have our own emotional filters in which to process what has happened. We are not computers which can process the facts in the same way - our feelings and thoughts get in the way. Thus, we are not "skilled workers" in the sense that we are emotional beings. We can't take our emotions out of the equation.

When I first read this quote, it struck me as a possible tie to the entire book. And it's interesting that it first appears in the psychiatrist's section, since the psychiatrist is supposed to be trained as an observer and helper of emotions and feelings, so to speak. But we have already seen that this psychiatrist, anyway, can't remove his emotions from the equation while he is supposed to be treating Simon.

[Sarah]

It seems to be in keeping with the way this book works. We're all interpreting things differently. There's actually a part in this section where he discusses a novel where... here.

You read a novel in which the hero or the antihero, the one you like, or simply the one whose progress you like to follow, well, this character commits a crime, say, a violent act. Who do you feel sorry for? You should feel sorry for the victim of the crime, but you don't. Why don't you? In your normal life you condemn violence of any kind, yet you don't condemn this act of violence, even though it's brutal. Perhaps you dislike the victim. Or perhaps you don't actually dislike him but you don't actively like him either. So where will your sympathies lie? Who will you feel sorry for?(146)

I think this sums up the reaction to Simon in the first section. For the most part we liked him, and even continued to like him after the kidnapping. Like the fact that he wouldn't actually hurt Sam somehow made it okay.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "I think this sums up the reaction to Simon in the first section. For the most part we liked him, and even continued to like him after the kidnapping. Like the fact that he wouldn't actually hurt Sam somehow made it okay."

Yeah, I also thought of my reaction to the first section and liking Simon even after the kidnapping when I read this part. Good quote, Sarah.

[Sarah]

If we do get a section from his POV I wonder if we'll still like him? Or sort of like him. I think that's more accurate.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "One of the things that I think this author gets really right is that he captures the complexity of humans. We aren't always good or bad like traditional heroes; we're all very morally gray. It's actually fascinating."

I agree, I can see the spectrum of good and bad in each character so far.

I was quite horrified by her father. A raving, racist bastard.

Actually, I take back my previous statement. There was no grey area in the father's character in my eyes. He was absolutely disgusting. And a hypocrite, like you said. I don't even want to know what he was doing with Angela's "friends" in the back room.

Yes, she becomes a prostitute, but overall I really feel sorry for her.

While reading this section I kept wondering how much time had passed since Angelique met Simon and the kidnapping incident. Yes, she got into prostitution out of dire straits, but then I kept wondering when she was going to look for another job and get out of it. She was clearly embarrassed for anyone to find out what she did, I would have thought she would be looking for a way out, but we are never told that she was ever looking for anything else. All she ever says is that she is going to breed birds one day. But that is a long-term plan, nothing to pay the bills at the moment.

Oh...and at the end of the section we find out that it's been two years....

I really liked the scene where she met Simon

I loved this scene too. He was a smooth talker and he made her feel comfortable. And it seemed he didn't even have to try to appear that way, he seemed to be in his own skin. Even after knowing about the kidnapping, why do I want to like Simon so much??

Angel repeatedly refers to her "inconvenience". I'm looking at page 180 right now and I think this is the third time she mentions it. Does anybody know what she's talking about?

I thought she was talking about her MS diagnosis. Initially, I thought it was going to turn out to be her abortion, but then she told Simon about that if I am remembering correctly. And Simon doesn't know about her "inconvenience". She said she kept the MS diagnosis, along with it's symptoms (the blurry eyes and incontinence), from Simon, so I think that's what she's talking about. She said at one point she was afraid to tell him because she was afraid that someday she would not be able to read any longer, and if that was the case Simon would see no connection to her, since a lot of what they do together is talk about books.

I thought it was interesting when Simon was in prison he talked about how people who have committed crimes against children are the lowest on the hierarchical ladder in prison. It was interesting to me because I didn't know that this happened outside of the U.S.

I thought the same thing. I had to remind myself that this takes place in Australia, so I remember thinking that it was interesting that this phenomenon reached outside the U.S.

[Sarah]

Actually, I take back my previous statement. There was no grey area in the father's character in my eyes. He was absolutely disgusting

Your comment really made me laugh. He was truly horrible. Jaw droppingly so.

Even after knowing about the kidnapping, why do I want to like Simon so much??

I'm absolutely in the same boat with you. The really funny thing is that we didn't get a "clean" perspective on Simon in the first place. I found the psychiatrist's POV disturbing so it's not like his affection bled off causing my fondness for Simon. And from Angel's perspective, it's almost even worse. The guy has lost touch with reality to the point that he thinks that he needs to kidnap Sam to stop Anna from having an affair, which is weird in its own right, and yet there's still this sense that he's just such a nice, likeable guy. It's fascinating!

[Ami]

Sarah wrote: "I'm not sure what it says about me but I really liked Angelique for the most part. Right up until she was waffling when dealing with the police. Her boyfriend, if he was that, just kidnapped a bo..."

First things first...Is anybody else getting a weird feeling about Kelly the roommate? What was the whole What's my name...Angelique...No it's not...What's my name exchange about (246)? Did Angel not want to be reminded of her life that once was?

Last Paragraph
Oh good Lord, i didn't think she would end up at the cop's house in the "woods" no less. The same cop with the milky complexion and oral...vomit fetish. SMH! After her in-depth description of his demeaning presence and lecherous eyes, why would she end up at that house? I thought she was smarter than this.

I'm going to be honest, I'm not liking Angelique any more or less than I did to begin with...I didn't really like her much to begin with because of how she was manipulating Simon with information about the Gareightys (sp?). Then the episode with the interrogation didn't help make any amends for my dislike of her, but her blubbering and begging for forgiveness from Simon at the correctional facility really threw me over the edge-It was just pathetic to read about. You feel so sorry for somebody like Angelique and then they go and do something so ridiculous like take the offer made by the sick cop who promised her he would make everything go away... How desperate was she? I pitied her.

I understand how she ended up where she did in the end. She was going to do anything and everything to get Simon the 30K. It was her way of making amends for calling the cops. Even after Simon demoralized her, she was hell bent on getting him the money-I'm left dumbfounded.

I'll continue later...

[Sarah]

It is pretty desperate on her part. I think she feels responsible for his incarceration rather than seeing that he was really really stupid. Because of that, I think she's willing to do anything to win his love. Although there's a feeling of trying to win his love back, but it was never hers in the first place.

I couldn't understand why she was acting so weird in the interrogation. She called the cops but then refused to even admit that he had kidnapped the boy. Talk about ambivalent! The whole interrogation actually made me lose respect for her too, and she was someone that I actually had some compassion for.

[Ami]

Linda wrote: "Sarah wrote: "One of the things that I think this author gets really right is that he captures the complexity of humans. We aren't always good or bad like traditional heroes; we're all very morally..."

Sarah wrote: "I figured everyone else would be having a hard time with her being a prostitute! I'm glad to see you feel the same. One of the things that I think this author gets really right is that he capture..."

So I've been on an exciting ride with this book, on the up and up, actually. Part 3, however, was the first time I found myself not liking what I was reading. There are 4-5 pages, I thought Perlman was at a loss for content and filled with phys/pharm (physiology/pharmacology) jargon in the discussion between Angelique and Alex the doctor. I absolutely hated her assessment of an orgasm...it's like a drug to them...An orgasm is the medication (157). Was this not the cheesiest crap you've read in a while...It felt so cliché to me? This part was actually full of clichés as was mentioned in Sarah's post. It ruined my flow in the book which became worse with the subject matter that followed...A lesson in biology...Really? It wasn't so much the lesson, I love science, but I felt condescended to...I thought Angelique was condescended to, but she doesn't realize it-Maybe that's what upset me so much. I also thought it should be noted, Alex never divulges anything "personal" about himself. He's clearly crossed over many ethical lines and Angelique brings this to light when she talks about the relationship between Simon, Alex and herself...They certainly went beyond the normal, once-a-week therapist/patient relationships you hear about. At the very least they were good friends. We all were, but we never brought up Alex's personal life (160)-Peculiar, isn't it?

I'm slightly angered at the relationship between Alex and Angel; granted, I'm disturbed by his relationships with everyone he's come into contact with so far that we know of, but isn't it interesting how it's Angel who says in reference to Simon's unfolding ...Through Simon's subterfuge, my need not to see it all, and Alex's own problems, that the three of us allowed Simon to get worse (189)?

Angel and Simon
On page 201, during the "So for poetry to be any good..." conversation with Simon, I get the feeling Angelique is beginning to feel suffocated by Simon's tutelage on all things considered. It's not as if she's losing interest in him, but I no longer think she hanging on his every word...She's exhausted. Dr. K, also mentions this as one of the reasons that attributed to Anna leaving in Part I.

The scene with the ophthalmologist was truly strange.
I picked up on how she went to see a an optometrist to begin with and specifically alludes to an appointment with the ophthalmologist. I thought it was interesting Perlman goes out of his way to make a clear distinction between these to similar, yet very different professions; yet the distinction between the psychiatry/psychology professions were not as clean cut...It was rather "ambiguous."

About Joe: He had to keep being someone's husband and someone's dad, otherwise he would be Simon This is both interesting and insightful.
I noticed a similarity in Part 2; but Yes, this further illuminates the commonalities between Joe and Sam...They really are more the same than different.

"inconvenience"
I agree with Linda, Angelique is referring to her symptoms from MS...

I found the psychiatrist's POV disturbing so it's not like his affection bled off causing my fondness for Simon.
I'm taking a different perspective on the varying POVs. I think they are all credible, so far, it's their individual truths. I'm under the impression the POVs are supposed to be ambiguous due to the nuances of the characters delivering the intel. For those of you reading "House of Leaves," you know exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think it's safe to say, one source is more credible than the other when the desired outcome is born from the conglomeration of the seven...Does this make sense?

What happened to Empson, who is taking care of him...Does anybody know?
I love dogs, I can't help but fixate on this.

[Ami]

Sarah wrote: "It is pretty desperate on her part. I think she feels responsible for his incarceration rather than seeing that he was really really stupid. Because of that, I think she's willing to do anything ..."

I don't understand why she didn't get a lawyer to begin with. Especially, if she was so worried about incriminating herself and further incriminating Simon. She was being evasive because of this, i think.

[Sarah]

I don't understand why she didn't get a lawyer to begin with

It's like she got halfway there and flinched. She doesn't even want to admit out loud that Sam was in any danger, or that there was any reason to call the police. I actually liked Angelique for the most part until this part. Her POV was a lot more "normal" compared to the first two. Much less ambiguous.

[Zulfiya]

Judging by the comments, you have been having a wonderful discussion. I finished the section earlier today, and I actually enjoyed much more than the previous one.
Joe is way way alien to me in his values and his understanding of the world.
Angela is a more down-to-earth person and more interesting to observe. I might have come to a far-gone conclusion, but there is nothing exciting in Joe. He can attract women only because of his bill folder with its platinum card.

Angelique/Angela knows the ups and the downs in life and, as a result, more prone to empathy. She has been abused earlier and Simon's predicament is the one she can relate to emotionally and physically. It is also not surprising that characters discuss what the book is discussing (I hope it makes sense). Basically, the novel is a certain example of auto-citation. I liked how Simon was discussing how different readers interpret reality differently, and as an example he is actually using the book by Empson Seven Types of Ambiguity. Only in the previous thread Teanka made a very solid point saying that we are all picking up different themes that are actualized while we read as a result of personal interpretation. In this part of the novel, Perlman demonstrates the validity of her point by alluding to the book by Empson.

This section is also the one that gives answers to some of the questions we were discussing earlier. Now we know that the psychiatrist is a man, and his name is Alex. We also get at least a partial explanation why Anna asked that question about urination. On the other hand, it raises other questions, to wit, how she knew about Angelique's medical condition.

Again, I actually enjoy parts that discuss literature more than parts without literary allusions. Maybe, this is the reason why I found this one illuminating about human nature while the previous one was slightly dull and predictable. There are many joes in our life, and they are all just the same. While I was reading, I couldn't help humming the song "Little Boxes"by Malvina Reynolds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SADPu...

Angelique, au contraire, is a real person with her mistakes, foibles, emotions, passions; there is definitely blood in her veins. She is not an automaton.

[Jess :)]

Ami wrote: "Part 3, however, was the first time I found myself not liking what I was reading...."

I agree with you. The orgasm discussion was boring, and I don't see that it contributed to the story in any way. Are we supposed to be impressed that Perlman can "talk science" ? lol.. I wasn't impressed.

I also found the long dialogue between the police officers and Angel to be drawn out and dull.

[Jess :)]

Ami wrote: "What was the whole What's my name...Angelique...No it's not...What's my name exchange about (246)? ..."

Angel initially assumes the name Angelique to seem respectable to Simon's parents. She has reinvented herself to please Simon and even considers herself to be his student. The name Angelique symbolizes the part of her that is 'made in Simon's image.'

When Angel flips out at her roommate, she's not being rational. She's in a bad place and she just loses it. Kelly does not even know her name! Kelly doesn't know who she is apart from Angelique --- the identity that is all mixed up with Simon.

The real problem is that Angel doesn't know who Angel is anymore. She's projecting that anger onto Kelly. She's lost part of her identity now that Simon is out of her life. She's hit rock bottom.

Kelly seems to understand this on some level and is forgiving. Even after the bitter words (Angel calls Kelly a whore ), Kelly is there to comfort Angel. I don't get a weird feeling about her at all.

[Jess :)]

Zulfiya wrote: "On the other hand, it raises other questions, to wit, how she knew about Angelique's medical condition..."

Anna doesn't know of Angelique's medical condition. She's throwing this back at Joe, since he suggested the activity to her once in the past. We know that the motivations behind his request were respectable (i.e. to rekindle their flagging sex life), but it's unlikely that she knows this.

What she does now know is that Joe is paying for sex that includes golden showers. And we know how she's connecting those dots: You're disgusting! Get out of my bed!

This errant supposition is in keeping with the broader theme. Above, Linda notes that: "We don't all have the same remembrance of the same event because we each have our own emotional filters in which to process what has happened." I completely agree! And beyond this, we have limited knowledge; we must connect dots to make judgments and find meaning. And, sadly, we're often wrong.

[Ami]

E :) wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "On the other hand, it raises other questions, to wit, how she knew about Angelique's medical condition..."

Anna doesn't know of Angelique's medical condition. She's throwing this b..."

E :) wrote: "Ami wrote: "What was the whole What's my name...Angelique...No it's not...What's my name exchange about (246)? ..."

Angel initially assumes the name Angelique to seem respectable to Simon's parent..."

E :) wrote: "Ami wrote: "Part 3, however, was the first time I found myself not liking what I was reading...."

I agree with you. The orgasm discussion was boring, and I don't see that it contributed to the sto..."
Oh E:), those 5 pages drove me nuts-It was a real nose dive for me! LoL!

I also found the long dialogue between the police officers and Angel to be drawn out and dull.
I equated this scene to my dogs chasing their tails. A never-ending cycle for them; although, watching them do it makes me laugh...The interrogation, not so much, I found it exhausting!

The name Angelique symbolizes the part of her that is 'made in Simon's image.'
Yes, you're right...More transference, I think.

The real problem is that Angel doesn't know who Angel is anymore...She's lost part of her identity now that Simon is out of her life.
Good point and yet another example of why paying allegiance to your emotions and making decisions isn't the most wise.

Even after the bitter words (Angel calls Kelly a whore ), Kelly is there to comfort Angel. I don't get a weird feeling about her at all.
Yes, I see...My unsettling feeling came from Angelique referring to Kelly as having the answer to something along the lines of "what needs to be done." On my initial reading I thought it was to take advantage of the knowledge gained from business clients and investing the money. On a second reading, it was obvious, Kelly was only referring to turning tricks (in the legal sense as it pertains to their occupation, of course.) Essentially, to do whatever to get the job done.

Anna doesn't know of Angelique's medical condition. She's throwing this back at Joe, since he suggested the activity to her once in the past. We know that the motivations behind his request were respectable (i.e. to rekindle their flagging sex life), but it's unlikely that she knows this.
I was going to ask Zulfiya about this, I thought I missed something...I didn't think Anna knew of Angelique's diagnosis either.

***Edit 3/8...turning tricks (in the legal sense as it pertains to their occupation, of course.)***
No, I think she really just meant to turn tricks and do whatever it took to make the cash needed. Where we're left at the end of Chapter 3, isn't considered legal...Is it?

[Zulfiya]

Maybe she did not know about the diagnosis, but she might know about the type of sex those two were having together. Joe seems to be very receptive about this 'golden shower'. Questions are being asked and answered in this novel all the time. I am sure other stories will shed more light on it.

As for descriptions of sexual practices that are not violent, I have no problems reading about them as I view sex as a part of our existence. On a reflection, it is somehow ironic that I accept sex as a part of biological Darwinism, but I am appalled by the social Darwinism that Joe represents. I find Joe's actions and way of making money more reprehensible than Angelique's.

[Zulfiya]

P.S. They still both represent more materialistic side of the world and are in sharp contrast with Simon.

[Ami]

Zulfiya wrote: "P.S. They still both represent more materialistic side of the world and are in sharp contrast with Simon."

I don't see this as being true, Zulfiya. I thought Joe and Simon were two sides of the same coin, actually. If the distinction is made solely on their career choices and lifestyles, none are really the richer for it. Joe lives, breathes and dies for his work and family, and is miserable; Simon lives, breathes and dies for books, and he is miserable as well. Sure Joe is wealthy and prides himself when it comes to his material objects, but Simon has the same attitude towards his books and intellect. Both get their rocks off on different vices, but I don't think the distinction in vices makes them so different. Simon is constantly seen shoving his knowledge down the throats of anybody who will stand still and willing to listen to him, he has a holier than thou persona if I've ever seen one. He uses intellect as a measure in the same way Joe uses his wealth...I don't see the sharp contrast.

[Zulfiya]

Ami wrote: "Joe lives, breathes and dies for his work and family, and is miserable"

I think this is the case when we have to agree to disagree. I do not see owning books being materialistic in Simon's case. There are people who own books for the sake of owning, but he owns for the sake of knowledge. Loving and learning are possibly the biggest human values in my understanding of the world, and Joe does not experience any of it. Does he love Anna? Does he love his son? Does he love people? If, as you say, he is willing to die for his family, why does he go to brothels? He loves money and converts money into cars and houses. He boasts about his financial stability and wears it as a badge of honor.

As for shoving knowledge into someone's throat, I do not see him doing it to everyone, but only to the receptive people. It seems like Angelique enjoyed reading in general, even before she men Simon, even if the literati would possibly describe her choice of reading as trash.

On a personal note, sometimes, I think knowledge should be shoved into someone's throat. Ignorance is bliss, but that bliss is dangerous for others. How often do we see religious bigots who are willing to kill others for the sake of their beliefs or in a minder form, discriminate against others?
It might be a personal experience, but it was one of the facets of cultural shock that I experienced after I moved to the USA. Teachers and instructors only give opportunities to learn and study. It works very well for the conscientious learners, and others simply graduate because not a single child should be left behind and everyone should pass. As a result, those children only know how to video-game, binge-watch TV shows and mess with their Iphones. Unfortunately, I see the same dumbing down now in Russia, and it appalls me on many, many levels. What an investment in our future as humanity! Knowledge is not an accomplishment any more.

The funny thing is that Simon might be that same kidnapper responsible for those crimes that happened earlier :-) There are many truths in this novel. The truth is out there.

[Ami]

Zulfiya wrote: "Ami wrote: "Joe lives, breathes and dies for his work and family, and is miserable"

I think this is the case when we have to agree to disagree. I do not see owning books being materialistic in Sim..."

On a personal note, sometimes, I think knowledge should be shoved into someone's throat. Ignorance is bliss, but that bliss is dangerous for others.
Is this statement made under the assumption the recipient is open to the conveying of wisdom by the giver? If not, it seems wasteful of both time and patience for the one who is passing on their wisdom as seen in Part Four (view spoiler)[Mitch's dilemma with Angel and the card counting (hide spoiler)]. I don't think "force" is ever the answer in getting your point across; neither is condescension, or intellectual elitism...It just makes one appear insecure, in my eyes.

Knowledge is not an accomplishment any more.
No, but how you use it still is. As it pertains to the book, both Joe and Simon use their knowledge for personal gains. Simon is not completely self-less and humble, let's be honest.

As for shoving knowledge into someone's throat, I do not see him doing it to everyone, but only to the receptive people.
Yes, this is what I stated…Being receptive is key, for both parties, those who insist on imparting wisdom and those who want to gain from it.

He loves money and converts money into cars and houses. He boasts about his financial stability and wears it as a badge of honor.
If this is the concern with Joe, then what about Simon's intellectual elitism. Joe came from humble beginnings and is proud of what he has achieved. A little humility to counterbalance the hubris would be nice, but it's not him.

Loving and learning are possibly the biggest human values in my understanding of the world, and Joe does not experience any of it.
I don't think he's avidly learning, or experiencing any love (meaning he's not being shown any). His lacking these values doesn’t make him any less a person either, perhaps not as enriched, if anything.

I see Joe still loving Anna, I see him "wanting" to be "in" love with his wife again...There's a difference between “loving” and being “in love” with somebody-Simon, the intellect makes this distinction as well with Angelique (234). I don't think his absence from the household reflects his lack of love for his family, he does love them and provides well for them. Anna makes it rather difficult for Joe to be "in" love with her, she is not receptive to him in the least bit. They are really at a deficit when it comes to communication. This type of behavior, year after year, takes a toll on a spouse, I feel safe to say.

If, as you say, he is willing to die for his family, why does he go to brothels?
I should't have said "die," Zulfiya, I meant "kill." So I'll respond according to "kill" for his family. He is human and as a human we crave companionship and intimacy. Joe is cheating on his wife, yes, but it doesn't mean he loves his wife less because of it-He respects her less for being a major factor in him having to resort to the company of legal prostitutes, I think. I don't condone cheating on one's spouse, but these two have been sitting on this never-ending cycle of disfunction for too long; is it really so bad Joe has finally taken things into his own hands resorting to prostitutes? Anna won't sleep with him, her husband, she detests him; he goes out and "sleeps with whores,"' and she's disgusted by him...What are this man's options besides abstinence, or self-gratification…And for how long is this supposed to suffice? I don't think either of those options are fair to him. Also, and I'm probably going to catch more grief for this next statement as well, but let's be honest, he's "F#$%ing" the “whores,” there's no emotion involved-It's just a carnal pleasure to him some of the times.

I do not see owning books being materialistic in Simon's case. There are people who own books for the sake of owning, but he owns for the sake of knowledge.
It's the aspect of quantifying and supplementing the self with possessions...Wealth for Joe and books/knowledge for Simon.

[Sarah]

I'm apparently in the minority on the orgasm discussion. I didn't really think it was necessary but I felt that it actually gave us insight into Angelique's character. In analyzing this it shows that she's completely divorced from what is going on. She's essentially separated herself into a mind and body here. The body is doing its thing, but the mind is free to roam and in roaming it's observing. I can't remember the details of the discussion, but she was only discussing male orgasms, right? Has she ever had an orgasm or does she view this as a male phenomenon only?

She's lost part of her identity now that Simon is out of her life.
This seems to be a cycle for her. I think she was lacking a distinct identity when she was just living with whoever she happened to be sleeping with.

I thought Joe and Simon were two sides of the same coin
I thought this whole comment was very interesting. I was thinking of it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, which I recently studied a bit. High status gives you a better chance of passing on your genes. What I see (after Ami's comment) is that they both are seeking high status, they're just choosing different vehicles: Joe's money and Simon's learning. So two sides of the same coin is a very apt description.

I don't think "force" is ever the answer in getting your point across; neither is condescension, or intellectual elitism
I couldn't agree more. If the person isn't receptive then it just turns into something more akin to abuse. Not abuse with knowledge, but abuse because you're trying to hammer something into someone. How many parents use this as justification for harming their children or spouse?

Loving and learning are possibly the biggest human values in my understanding of the world
I totally agree with this one :)

I see Joe still loving Anna, I see him "wanting" to be "in" love with his wife again
Does anybody think that this may have more to do with obtaining the unobtainable (a conquest) rather than Anna personally? Curiosity only, I have no opinion.

is it really so bad Joe has finally taken things into his own hands resorting to prostitutes?
This is something I've struggled with. If I were married, it seems like going to a legal brothel would be preferable to having an affair. There's maybe a bit more shame in him using a prostitute, but at the end of the day a man is not going to get emotionally attached to a woman that he has to pay.

[Ami]

Sarah wrote: "I'm apparently in the minority on the orgasm discussion. I didn't really think it was necessary but I felt that it actually gave us insight into Angelique's character. In analyzing this it shows ..."

but at the end of the day a man is not going to get emotionally attached to a woman that he has to pay
I don't think this is true, Sarah...There's always a possibility for emotional attachment, it just isn't the case with Joe.

Does anybody think that this may have more to do with obtaining the unobtainable (a conquest) rather than Anna personally?
I would say so. At first, I thought he was attempting to win the affections of his wife back, but I'm beginning to think he never had them to begin with...I really can't wait to hear her POV on the two of them. :)

I'm apparently in the minority on the orgasm discussion. I didn't really think it was necessary but I felt that it actually gave us insight into Angelique's character.
Yes, it's as if she reverted back to being an innocent child again. Hmmm, maybe this is why I felt Alex was talking down to her. I think Alex is a lot more astute than I've given him credit for in the past; maybe, he does have a better pulse on these interactions?

I can't remember the details of the discussion, but she was only discussing male orgasms, right? Has she ever had an orgasm or does she view this as a male phenomenon only?
Yes, it was only pertaining to male orgasms and the reasoning behind repeat customers...Why these men keep coming back. So her POV on the female orgasm was irrelevant. How old is she now, Sarah...As of Part Three, do you know?

[Sarah]

I only remember that it's been two years since she met Simon.

[Teanka]

Sarah wrote: "I only remember that it's been two years since she met Simon."

And she was during her first year of studies when she had an abortion and ran away from her father. Then she spent a few months or a year in Melbourne prior to meeting Simon. So I guess she'd be 21-23 at the time we're reading about her.

My feelings regarding Angela were similar to those of the majority here, I sympathised with her (I seem to sympathise with each and every character when it's their turn to tell the story, that's strange for me) and I was a bit surprised at how normal her life was. I only began to be annoyed with her at the time of the police interviews because she was behaving really foolishly. And the end of this section really made me feel bad. Especially as I was certain there would be nothing gained by sleeping with the cop, so again silly Angelique. I think I still feel sorry for her at the end of this section, although she's lost some of my sympathy because of her irrational and emotional behaviour.

[Sarah]

I couldn't have said it better. That was the exact progression of my own feelings.

[Zulfiya]

Teanka wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I sympathised with her (I seem to sympathise with each and every character when it's their turn to tell the story, that's strange for me) and I was a bit surprised at how normal her life was. "

Seven Types of Sympathies.

[Teanka]

Zulfiya wrote: "Seven Types of Sympathies. "
Exactly! :)

[Linda]

Teanka wrote: "I seem to sympathise with each and every character when it's their turn to tell the story, that's strange for me"

Zulfiya wrote: "Seven Types of Sympathies."

I find myself sympathizing with each character too. I wonder if there is going to be a story told by a character who I don't sympathize with?

Zulfiya - perfect alternate title!

[Sarah]

I'm starting section 5 and I'm also wondering if there's someone I won't sympathize with. Simon? Anna? How is it possible to sympathize with everyone? It's kind of crazy! And totally brilliant writing.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "How is it possible to sympathize with everyone?"

I know. I was wondering the same thing. And, not that I have time to do this, but I wondered if after reading the book and knowing the story from everyone's POV, if I were to reread the book would I have a different reaction to each story from the first time I read it?

[Teanka]

Linda wrote:
I wondered if after reading the book and knowing the story from everyone's POV, if I were to reread the book would I have a different reaction to each story from the first time I read it?
"
I think I would have a different reaction. For one, I dislike Joe a lot after the 4th section and wouldn't be so sympathetic with him if I reread the 2nd section. And I think at this point that I won't like Anna... but never say never, I guess :)