“It’s as if Louise never existed, like a character in a book. Did I invent her?” (189)
At this point in the novel, the narrator has returned from their trip to London in search for Louise. Upon returning to their home, the narrator has a conversation with Gail in which they state the above passage during an explanation of their failed journey. Although the narrator searches for Louise to the best of their ability, they do not find her. As a result, they express that “it’s as if Louise never existed.” This could suggest that the narrator’s feelings of loss have caused them to forget Louise. Yet, due to the vast amount of time the narrator spends thinking about Louise, this does not seem likely. Instead, I propose that Louise has never actually existed in the “real world.”
The use of the word “like” in this passage establishes a simile in which the narrator compares Louise to a character in a book. When one reads a book, especially a novel with strong character development, he/she may feel connected to a character on a personal level. A reader may even develop strong romantic feelings for a character, but this all exists within the reader’s imagination and outside of the “real world.” Similarly, if Louise is like “a character in a book,” the narrator may develop strong emotions towards her, but not actually be able to interact with her in the “real world.” This does not make the narrator’s love illegitimate. Instead, it shows how love can exist in different, sometimes fictional, contexts.
The narrator then asks, “Did I invent her?” This may explain Louise’s lack of autonomy as a character. Throughout the novel, the narrator seems to talk about Louise as though she is an all-knowing, active force in the narrator’s life and, on page 91, the narrator even states that he/she thought of Louise “beyond common sense.” Yet, Louise has practically no voice in the novel, and even when she does, the narrator interprets her words. The narrator may have therefore “invented” Louise, “like a character in a book.” To the reader, Louise is indeed a “character in a book.” Through an analysis of this passage, the narrator’s awareness of her character becomes evident as well.
Really interesting claim! I think the close reading here is really solid, particularly the assertions about Louise’s lack of agency, since I do think that the narrator often overrides or ignores Louise’s autonomy in favor of their own. However, I ultimately disagree with the notion that Louise literally did not exist. Using the same argument, I might suggest that Louise becomes a “character in a book” through the narrator’s inability to see Louise as a real, flawed person. It is not that the narrator has to become aware of Louise’s inherent falsehood in the end, but instead they must come to terms with the falsity of the idealized character that they projected onto Louise.