I agree with rushthatspeaks that it's the coming back, not the leaving, that casts Joe out of the narrative.
I think Joe's hubris in the end is his sense of - entitlement is the wrong word - but his moral slipperiness, his dishonesty and dismissal of consequence. Especially in parallel with Louis. Louis's meetings with Belize and Prior are a barrage of accusation that Louis has no true self and no true feelings, that he is fundamentally dishonest even to himself. Of course they have no reason to recognize his feelings, perhaps because they believe if he had them he would not have done what he did, but I think Louis is recognized by the narrator, nevertheless; Ultimately, the crime he commits and his consequential struggles with himself are ones of shameful honesty.
Joe, on the other hand, has his moment of shameful honesty to himself, but he doesn't continue on that path. Unlike Louis during their affair, he is happy to not think about the things his done; His talk with Louis at the end of Perestroika Act 1 seems to boil down to the disconnected and naive statement of 'good is doing what one needs to do to be happy, "free from politics and history."' He outright dismisses any real world damage done by social conservative politics that Louis brings up as being beside the point, whatever that is. Later, He does not take moral responsibility for the law he's written himself and physically attacks Louis when Louis attempts to force him to recognize it. Louis when he tries to reconnect with Prior, he goes to him fully cognizant of what he's done, completely accepting of the consequences, and without any sense of entitlement. Joe on the other hand is apparently emotionally unable to recognize his moral place in the world, and goes to Harper feeling completely entitled to her, I think specifically to the moral certainty and naivety that their relationship represents for him.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-07-25 10:28 am (UTC)I think Joe's hubris in the end is his sense of - entitlement is the wrong word - but his moral slipperiness, his dishonesty and dismissal of consequence. Especially in parallel with Louis. Louis's meetings with Belize and Prior are a barrage of accusation that Louis has no true self and no true feelings, that he is fundamentally dishonest even to himself. Of course they have no reason to recognize his feelings, perhaps because they believe if he had them he would not have done what he did, but I think Louis is recognized by the narrator, nevertheless; Ultimately, the crime he commits and his consequential struggles with himself are ones of shameful honesty.
Joe, on the other hand, has his moment of shameful honesty to himself, but he doesn't continue on that path. Unlike Louis during their affair, he is happy to not think about the things his done; His talk with Louis at the end of Perestroika Act 1 seems to boil down to the disconnected and naive statement of 'good is doing what one needs to do to be happy, "free from politics and history."' He outright dismisses any real world damage done by social conservative politics that Louis brings up as being beside the point, whatever that is. Later, He does not take moral responsibility for the law he's written himself and physically attacks Louis when Louis attempts to force him to recognize it. Louis when he tries to reconnect with Prior, he goes to him fully cognizant of what he's done, completely accepting of the consequences, and without any sense of entitlement. Joe on the other hand is apparently emotionally unable to recognize his moral place in the world, and goes to Harper feeling completely entitled to her, I think specifically to the moral certainty and naivety that their relationship represents for him.