Heirs to Freedom

Ιt seems only proper that when writing about a novel, the first thing that must be explored is if this novel conveys any novel-ty at all or if its novelty is exhausted in the presence of just one more story. In the case of the Heirs to Freedom, there is a complete affirmation of this fact, which facilitates breaking the chain of our reading habits. So, what is surprisingly ‘novel’ about this novel? The first, unassuming answer could be that its novelty lies in its perspective, but one might reasonably argue against why exactly another perspective, in the vast and ruffled sea of other perspectives, would be such a valuable asset. Especially if, as for Derrida, what I, the reader, interpret as read in the text is the essential thing. That is, if my perspective is equal, if not superior, to the perspective of the writer/storyteller. In such a case, my perspective, the reader’s perspective, would become indispensable, with the vehemence of an unrestrained force. Cunningly, Professor Vasillopulos has predicted that when he upholds through the lips of one of his heroes: “We wish to communicate, and we wish not to be hurt by having the content of the message ridiculed or treated disrespectfully… So we wrap our message in ambiguity. In lieu of making as clear a statement as our abilities allow, which after all only rarely requires a Newton or a Locke, we scatter hints. These we hope will become a trail for the right investigator… If it doesn’t, nothing is lost, or rather, less is lost than if a clear rejection follows a clear message”. Let us then try to decipher this message but let us do that as Derridean readers and also as investigators. To achieve this aim, I will temporarily undertake the attempt to highlight several aspects of the book which, in my estimation, will lead closer to what I would eventually rather call a mature, genuine and brilliant trip than a doubtful and obscure destination.