terms of those who loved her. She paid back their love with-well, with what? Malice? Not proven. Hate? Not proven. With the irrational? Yes; proven. In terms of the effect on her friends-such as Fat-no lucid purpose was served but purpose there was: purpose without purpose, if you can conceive of that. Her motive was no motive. We're talking about nihilism. Under everything else, even under death itself
The narrative explores the complex dynamics of love and its reciprocation through the lens of a character whose relationships are fraught with confusion and lack of clarity. While her loved ones may have invested care and affection, the protagonist’s responses seem to lack the traditional returns of love, evidenced in actions that cannot be easily categorized as malice or hate, signalling a deeper, more profound nihilism at play. This absence of clear motive complicates the interpretation of her behavior towards those who cared for her.
Through this exploration, it becomes evident that her actions might serve an ambiguous purpose, one that defies logical reasoning. Despite the impact on her friends, particularly one named Fat, her influences appear to be devoid of rational intent, emphasizing a kind of purposelessness. This theme of nihilism reveals an unsettling truth about her existence: even beneath the finality of death, the underlying motives remain elusive and open to interpretation, leaving a haunting question about the nature of human connection and intent.
