Discussion Summary

We then discussed the role of fish in the work, coming up with a large number of theories for who could best signify the fish as a character within the novel, especially in who was two sided enough to be the kelpy.  Some things, such as Death’s abrupt killing of the machine breaker, and gould’s on-average crazy behaviour make them good prospects for this.

We also discussed the feasibiliy of bringing meaning to the fishes, when Gould wrote in character (46) that the fish should not be brought to take meaning out of, but rather that it was simply a fish.  However, by saying that he saw himself as a fish in certain situations, Gould again offers a contradiction in his writing.

And even if the fish should be given meaning, Josh mentioned that the fish itself is an indifferent thing, and the reader or watcher simply gives it meaning. 

We also said that the Commandant seemed too crazy to actually be interpreted as a character in any other way than the literal, a man so insane he believes his prison is an empire. 

It seemed a large part of the discussion ended in confusion because of the sheer number of details given to us by the author, it seems a large number of arguments are supportable. 

I personally found important, but did not have time to mention, the long rant on 91-93 about how Gould sees meaning in his art.  It seems that he seems to essentially be saying that neither the artist nor the critic comprehends the work.  If we take this from the scope of the author, it seems Flanagan is making a commentary on how to interpret his book.

Given that Tomas mentioned that the author seemed to be speaking to the reader, I think it’s feasible that Flanagan is changing the nature of the novel such that it’s meaning is dependent upon the reader.