Today in class, briefly before we parted, Piekarski asked a question that somewhat confused me. I didn't understand if he was trying to ask us if we thought that Miller had a good reason to be vulgar. Does his purpose for this book and his language give us an excuse to express our minds OR our mouths, or our minds AND our mouths?
In result, some people tried to answer my confusion and what I got out of that was the idea that this book was written for fake people. We all know that we all have thoughts similar to Millers and there is no hiding the fact that we are all judgmental in someway or another. But what I don't understand is if Miller is trying to be "that guy", the one who always puts people out of their comfort zone by putting their morals at stake. Is he trying to tell us that it is better to be real and honest than to be fake and considerate? I don't understand Miller at all, the only thing apparent to me about him is that he pities dishonesty in more than one level.
Anyway, I'm glad that this book is over with. In addition, if his purpose was to be "that guy" than he has succeeded. A lot of my friendships are at stake, thanks to my reactions towards Miller and somehow I am unsure if I like being this way or not.
0 comments:
Post a Comment