Now, I’m researching plausibility theory. A part of me feels like I need to move forward, but I am stalled, tweaking, endlessly, to the introduction, back to the middle, then to the end, then back and forth, and now the introduction, tweaking the opening lines more, because I decided to go for a slightly different tone that has become more the flavor. Simone De Beauvoir. She intrudes because she has integrated into the character’s mind, into the essence of the novel. I wasn’t going for this extreme of feminism, but sometimes the work draws a breath, takes a hold and informs the author in ways that are mysteriously profound. The problem is I’ve got too many obstacles, impediments I’m trying to circumvent. But maybe I shouldn’t be. De Beauvoir is in my head, at each step. And in these moments I feel like I want to think logically rather than ambiguously or mysteriously. I want a plan, but I don’t exactly have one. De Beauvoir suggests men plan accordingly, set goals and reach them in purposeful ways. Men transcend, so that even if they should at one point get stuck in the quagmire, they are more likely to free themselves and continue on. As for the female, “Her desire, as we have seen, is much more ambiguous: she wishes, in a contradictory fashion, to have this transcendence, which is to suppose that she at once respects it and denies it, that she intends at once to throw herself into it and keep it within herself.” If I could attain transcending, maybe I have and don’t know it, I could ignore the minor details, unmoor my mind of the messy, the plausibility theory. Maybe not. I am not a pure feminist myself insomuch as I am a female and aware of my gender and the idiosyncrasies and frailties associated with it.