21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
Slow Man
2012 Book Discussions
>
Slow Man - Chapters 21-30 & Complete Book Discussion (February 2012)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
William
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 28, 2012 06:52PM
For Chapters 21-30, and the entire work as a whole.
reply
|
flag
If I understood it correctly, Costello is actually Coetzee, which would make sense. While not my favourite of his works, I really did enjoy this book and appreciated his insights. The book gave us a lot of food for thought and I liked that Coetzee didn't tie up everything in a pretty ribbon and bow at the end but left it up to each reader to decide on Paul's eventual outcome.
I'm not sure I agree with Costello=Coetzee, but there's assuredly an intentional parallel. I really like this book because of the amazing indeterminacy of it. Some questions I'd LOVE for people to render their opinion on:
#1: WAS Costello Coetzee?
#2: Does Paul exist outside of Costello's mind?
#3: How does Costello know the details she does?
For me, my favorite part comes near the end, where Costello is asleep on pages of her writing, and Paul, as character run amok reads the pages and wonders himself if he's real or not. Combine all this with the amazing prose Coetzee can just throw at any passage with seemingly little effort, and you've got a confusing little book, destined to never be a big favorite, but a VERY worthy little book.
Another question to go with your 2nd. Does Costello exist outside Paul's mind?
a good question! I'm trying to recall much interaction between Costello and other characters, and while I believe there is some, it's pretty limited, so the question is something to think about.
After I finished, I started reading Coetzee's book ELIZABETH COSTELLO. I'm not sure if Costello is the author or is a character who is uncomfortably inserted into the story to press Paul in a post modernist slant. Paul's inner battle is enhanced by Costello, but I think that her interactions with other characters, especially at the end, tends to convince me that she is real but is an artifice of the author.The psychological turmoil of Paul was fascinating, but I felt that there was perhaps too much activity inserted into the plot, and that distracted me from the excellent craft of the first third of the book.
The ending tells me that Paul did not get from point A to point B but barely left point A only to return to point A, and that is disappointing.
I like that Paul returns to point A. It's a sort of resolution, whereby he has come to terms with his loss. Indeed Costello tells him (or he tells himself) that "... after a certain age we have all lost a leg, more or less. Your missing leg is just a sign or symbol or symptom, I can never remember which is which, of growing old, old and uninteresting. So what is the point of complaining?"
For me Paul returns to point A, but facing the other direction, as one would when turning around and returning to the starting point. He now stands at point A with a new understanding, resolve, and philosophic viewpoint of himself and life. That's far more important that arriving as most do, to point B no more the wiser. Really, Paul's loss of the leg awakens him from his death-like slumber he'd been in for many years by that point. The impossibly awkward attempt at love (and thus we must admit fairly realistic) stems from the accident, and is a by-product of it. So while Paul comes to terms with his loss, I think that loss isn't just the leg, it's the years and opportunities he let slip through his fingers while in his rut. Point A at this point is a sort of victory for him. Maybe a good lesson is to live every day as though you could lose a leg?
Hadn't looked at it from that viewpoint but what you said makes a lot of sense.
