The way the plot of some of these stories evolves or at least grows and then dies off leaving the reader to wonder if (s)he like the narrator was seeing through the character’s scheme or simply projecting a meaning onto a behavior which had no specific intention is a recurring question when looking at many works in art and design. It makes me wonder what makes legitimate work?
Legitimacy (or why something should be accepted as truthful, genuine) is a social notion or a natural part of life? Or both?
Survival of the fittest seems almost like a process through which beings show the “legitimacy” of their “transformations” letting them go on and survive, but legitimacy here seems to be disguised as forced decision making: you change or you die, so no time to prove your change is legitimate since it’s going to be “tested”. So legitimacy in one way is “appropriate-ness” of a solution to a challenge or problem.
But what happens when the problem becomes abstract? intangible? creation? perception? Then should an action still be proven to earn its legitimacy as a solution to a given problem or merely trusted to be the right solution – action – thought – creation?
In that case it seems like the problem isn’t anymore the one we may have thought it was at first, but instead, the problem or challenge becomes ones intention. What was your intention? What action resulted from it? Is it an appropriate solution? Is it legitimate? DOES IT EVEN MATTER IF IT IS OR ISN’T?!?!?!
This is where in response to this dialectic I side with Paul Auster’s position or at least in the novel, where he finishes questioning the value of having a “legitimate” purpose behind one’s actions.
This is a little bit the motor behind this blog, I could make a million reasons why it exists but the thing that really matters isn’t even a reason is that right now I have the INTENTION of SPEAKING MY MIND so I do Up to you to give it a purpose.