I must admit, I didn’t really enjoy reading Richard Powers’ Galatea 2.2. Our class discussion on Tuesday, however, made me appreciate the text more than I initially did. I think it is interesting that Powers inserted himself in his novel, Galatea 2.2. I didn’t know why at first, but our class discussion shed some light on a potential reason for this insertion. In the Fitzpatrick article from last week, it is suggested that in the twenty first century the author is no longer at the focal point of his or her text. Someone suggested this in class, and I am in complete agreement, that Powers inserted himself in the novel so that he is not forgotten; he has made himself the focal point. By making himself the main character and narrator of the text, Powers is forcing the reader to acknowledge the novel as coming from, as well as being, a part of him.
Powers definitely blurs the line between reality and fiction in the text. On page 155, Powers suggests that “life is metonymy,” or the part represent the whole. We discussed this in class, and came to the conclusion that Powers is suggesting that the interval or space between two pitches is the meaning or truth. Essentially, meaning is derived from the space between two things. I’m not completely sure of what this exactly means, but it made me think of the notion that the signifier and the signified work to form the sign. The signified, according to Roland Barthes, is the actual concept, such as the literary canon. The signifier is the ambiguous meaning that is attached to the actual concept; therefore, the signifier is the mental image that is triggered after hearing the concept, the literary canon. The sign is then the meaning that is derived from the combination of the signified, the actual concept, and the signifier, the ambiguous associated meaning. I think that Powers is making the point in his novel that a computer will never outsmart the human, because computers are only exposed to the signified, or concept, when forming meaning.
We also discussed the names and purpose of the characters a great deal in class. As I mentioned in my previous post, as well as in class, I didn’t like the fact that Powers did not refer to his characters by name. I found the way in which Powers refers to his characters by solitary letters to be impersonal. I think that Powers avoids connecting too much with his characters, because to him they are merely pawns in his life. Similar to Shakespeare using the characters in his plays as game-like pieces, I think Powers is showing that that he is manipulating the individuals in his text in order to form a narrative. More or less, the characters themselves are not important they are simply the parts that work to form the whole -numbers in the overall equation.
Okay that’s all I have for now. I hope everyone has a nice break!!!
