Thought I'd take this to your actual LJ and leave poor Sushi alone for a last thought:
Loosing Laurie was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's pretty clear that he was lost long before that. Janey knew it after the accident. The Comedian knew it in Vietnam. Laurie missed it because she was young and naive, but she learned quickly.
These are good points! I missed a lot of details of the characterizations on my first read because I was so busy cumming over the way the panels interacted and some of the metapoints.
But they still don't discount my points at least to me, because I still read a lot of people not "getting" what it means to be who he is after the accident. But what I really think is interesting is that I was disappointed in the movie with how Dr. M was played, and reading your analysis here, it's because he was played EXACTLY as you see him.
I do have a tendency in my readings to see things that others don't. It could mean I'm wrong (sometimes I am). It could mean that I see subtexts that others miss. I do think that often people bring things to texts that enable them to see things differently... it's part of that grayness I love/hate so much about humanity. It may be eventually I'll decide that initial reading was wrong. But I think I'll have a fondness for it always, because it is one of the many reasons I found the book so exciting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 10:16 pm (UTC)Loosing Laurie was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's pretty clear that he was lost long before that. Janey knew it after the accident. The Comedian knew it in Vietnam. Laurie missed it because she was young and naive, but she learned quickly.
These are good points! I missed a lot of details of the characterizations on my first read because I was so busy cumming over the way the panels interacted and some of the metapoints.
But they still don't discount my points at least to me, because I still read a lot of people not "getting" what it means to be who he is after the accident. But what I really think is interesting is that I was disappointed in the movie with how Dr. M was played, and reading your analysis here, it's because he was played EXACTLY as you see him.
I do have a tendency in my readings to see things that others don't. It could mean I'm wrong (sometimes I am). It could mean that I see subtexts that others miss. I do think that often people bring things to texts that enable them to see things differently... it's part of that grayness I love/hate so much about humanity. It may be eventually I'll decide that initial reading was wrong. But I think I'll have a fondness for it always, because it is one of the many reasons I found the book so exciting.