Reply to comment

In the novel, it seems like Deanna, Lusa, and Garnett are trying to be in absolute control of themselves (and frequently others also) by laying down logical reasoning when different values challenge them. They are reluctant to accept the values of others (Eddie, Cole, Nannie) because they are caught up with reasoning everything. Only when they are struck by a hardship, do they step a little back to see their beliefs in a larger picture (but even then, they try to self-justify). This was kind of frustrating because they all were trying to have everything in their way when their views were so limited.

However, in the end, they seem to reconcile with the world and find happiness in accepting things around them. Only when they are willing to step back and not try to base everything in their past decisions, do they find the knowledge they really needed (the value of learning from others' perspectives) instead of struggling with their endless, confusing thoughts.  This reminded me of Barry Schwartz's maximizer and satisficer scale. I think I want to analyze how being maximizer caused the main characters to be less happy than when they became satisficers.

But I am a bit confused because I don't think becoming satisfied with their surroundings was necessarily all good-- I think it took away their ability to think critically. It seems like they are no longer unique, distinctive individuals because they now have compromised with their surroundings...