Analysis of the third paragraph of the second chapter from David Lodge’s Nice Work (from “There are no origins” to “make it a better place”)

In this part of the third paragraph the narrator focuses his attention on Robyn Penrose’s philosophy. In particular, it is said that she shares with the famous French philosopher Jacques Derrida the conviction that “there is nothing outside the text”. Since every text is the result of intertextuality between already existing texts, she also states that no origin can be determined, there is just production, and we as human beings are just another product of the encounter of different texts. As a consequence, Robyn believes we are “what speaks us”, that is to say we are the result of a net of references. Robyn calls her conception “semiotic materialism”, where the first word (semiotic) refers to the study of signs and their relation to meaning (which is fundamental in order to analyze a text); the second word (materialism) excludes whatever metaphysical interpretation, according to the disbelief of postmodern culture towards every explanation that goes beyond the physical world.

Going on, the narrator reports some of the possible criticism that may affect Robyn’s philosophy, but Robyn skilfully replies to every observation: her thinking is not inhuman (against human common sense and morality), but antihumanist (against humanism, that is to say every philosophy that puts humanity at the centre, making it the main hub of the Universe); it is not deterministic, since a subject is determined only if he/she is not aware of being the manifestation of a web of discourses.

The way the narrator reports Robyn’s thoughts and beliefs is a bit sarcastic, since the narrator here embodies the thoughts of an ordinary man, who would say Robyn’s philosophy is “bleak” and “inhuman”, thus showing repulsion towards this seemingly strange way of thinking, but she cleverly has an answer for every criticism she receives.

However, going on reading, the narrator explains Robyn’s behaviour is not very influenced by her abnormal thoughts, and indeed she behaves as everyone would do in everyday life. Concluding, all the power Robyn puts in defending her theses instantaneously disappears when her real life is concerned: it seems like, after all, even if she supports her beliefs in a stubborn way, she has no real difference from the people she challenges during her literary/philosophical debates: she is unable to transpose her philosophy in the real world.