Reply to comment

I am really enjoying reading The Sorrows of An American.  This is mostly because I can just read it and I don't have to analyze- I can just understand it.  What I think I am enjoying the most about this novel though, is the fact that its set in New York City.  I agree with what was said previously in the forum about "reading unconsciously" (by L.Kelly Bowditch).  I feel the same way and I really like the idea that was proposed that it's easier to just "let your subconscious take over" as you read this novel.  I felt like it was easier for me to picture the characters walking down Varick street or taking the 3 train, or even running from Stuyvesant during 9/11 because those are all places I've been before and I feel like I can read, picture in my mind and get through 20 pages of reading without even realizing or trying to analyze what I am reading. Even so, without analyzing, I am able to put the story together subconsciously-and whether the story that I have created in my mind is the one that Hustvedt intended, I am not sure, but I do find that it easier for my subconscious to take over when I am reading a novel like this, than it was when reading Whitman.  Although Whitman may have intended to represent the unconscious and wanted us to allow our unconscious thinking to guide us in our understanding of his writing, whereas Hustvedt may have intended a bit more conscious thinking when reading her novel, I feel like I have been doing the exact opposite.  I have been trying to understand Whitman with conscious thought and analysis while enjoying Hustvedt's writing because I can read unconsciously.  Ironically, allowing my unconscious to take over allows me to understand the novel better.  Thinking about this, I remembered what Professor Grobstein told us in our Thursday section that rmehta also quoted above in the forum-"things that derive from incoherence are greater than things that can derive from coherence".  Maybe I'm enjoying this novel because I'm allowing my unconscious to take over when reading and in so doing, I am getting a better understanding.  Maybe it's an understanding I've created and not the one that Hustvedt intended.  but nevertheless, I do not feel frustrated as I did with Whitman's writing. 

The two most interesting ideas that I have come across so far in the novel is one proposed by the character Erik on page 105.  He states, "I believe meaning is what the mind makes, not wants".  I found this interesting because in class we have been saying that we as humans search for meaning-it is something we do consciously.  Is Hustvedt implying that the search for meaning is unconscious?  If so, then why was I having such a difficult time understanding Whitman?  I also liked the two ideas presented on page 86 that "there is no clear border between remembering and imagining"  and that "...we make our narratives, and those created stories can't be separated from the culture in which we live."  Both these ideas made me question all the subconscious thoughts I've had throughout my life-all those thoughts that I have interpreted , maybe misinterpreted, as vague childhood memories.  Were they really memories or simply something I imagined-a "narrative I had created", almost resembling a dream?  If so, then maybe some dreams are not distorted memories, but rather, perhaps some memories are dreams.