According to the preface, this book is widely considered a work relating to existentialist philosophy though the author has denied it. I can well see how this comparison is made, as the protagonist appears to be dispassionately self-involved through most of the novel, which at least gives the impression of an existentialist worldview. It seems to me, however that rather than being a study in existentialism, this is a study of a man living mostly disconnected from the people and places he nevertheless enjoys interacting with and trying to understand. He seems to be able to go through the motions of living and pass himself off on some levels as a normal thinking/feeling human being, without the burden of really feeling or caring about anything beyond his own immediate desires.

His "breakdown" at the end of the novel is somewhat revealing, but only somewhat. I have to admit that at the end of the novel, I didn't necessarily "get it," and felt that while it was an interesting character study, it didn't really enlighten any particular societal, psychological, or philosophical objective.

I often wonder if, in attempting to glean the most from a highly-regarded work, the experience is conscribed in such a way as to make it ultimately futile. Or perhaps I'm just too dense or mired in psychological and philosophical considerations to be open enough to truly benefit.