Though Söderberg 's analysis is in some ways rather different from Proust 's; he is much more explicit about sex- shockingly so by the tandards of the time- and one of the obvious reasons why things go wrong is that Arvid fails to understand how women can be just as interested in sex as men are.
What both authors are most interested in motivation, and here Söderberg comes up with a striking way of presenting his answer.
And, just in the same ay, Arvid and Lydia have no real control over their destinies.
Arvid asks him why he thinks it 's any of his business; Herr Rissler replies that, if he was going down the treet and saw a runaway horse, he would grab hold of the reins before it overturned the carriage.
In just the same pat, I think his boo is two things at the same time: als Erscheinung, it is a love story, but als Ding an Sich it is a philosophical treatise.
You only have to think a little more about ant 's picture to see why it makes no sense: we can never know anything about the Ding an Sich, so it 's not unreasonabl to say that the philosophy is the " real " book and the love story is the appearance.
As Kant points out, we only ever have appearances: here, we have a book which sometimes appears as a love story, and sometimes as a work of philosophy.I think this way of looking at it is rather closer to the truth.
The uthor has divided himself between the two protagonist of Arvid and Herr Rissler, who respectively stand for the motional and the philosophical ways of seeing what is happening.
Arvid is interested in happenings and feelings; but Rissler, like Proust, is unintereste in why people do things, and, even more, how they write about them to turn experience into art.