Dichotomies and Confusion

Given the preoccupation discussed in oppositional, structural pairings announced by Anna on p 43: "Men. Women. Bound. Free. Good. Bad. Yes. No. Capitalism. Socialism. Sex. Love...", I'd like to discuss one case that highlights the ultimate slipperiness of these polarizations, the characters Paul and Willi. Paul is characterized as an ironic, decadent scion who embraces his class power and privilege, while Willi is the doctrinaire Marxist. Yet, Anna confuses things considerably from here by painting Willi as bourgeois and conservative (for instance, insisting on the subjugation of women by men, pp 112-113), and by passages where she describes how Willi desired to get a job in London high-finance after the war (!) but, unsuccessful, settles for the position of a party official in East Germany (p 71); as a mirror image, she notes of the destined-for-success Paul "had been caught up in a political movement that could have used his talents, he would have stayed with it;" (p 73), and she writes later of his "frustrated idealism." (p. 89). These things lead me to understand that the distinctions of left/right, socialist/capitalist, oppression/liberation that are being elaborated have considerable difficulty in maintaining boundaries, separating off purely. Or more disturbingly, it seems through her description of Paul and Willi's affinities for one another (p 74) that the two are fundamentally interchangeable somehow -- not in character, but in the roles of idealist/cynic, communist/capitalist.

Sorry for the late post.