While, I think we can come to a general consensus that reading Double or Nothing can be troublesome because it is a fairly atypical book, I have found it rather interesting to be able to read the narrator’s thoughts as he writes the story of the young man—or is just thinking about preparing to write the story. Perhaps it is because sometimes when I am reading more traditional forms of literature, I think about what the author might be going through at the time—and while I know that the narrator is not Federman, I still find it rather interesting. I mean, surely you know that when you write—whether it is a poem, short story, or even an essay for a class—you aren’t only thinking about the task at hand. I will think about the fact that I have to go to work later that evening, the song that is playing, or that I need to call my friend back—a number of things really. But, what does this do to Double or Nothing? Does it enhance the piece? If you don’t think it does, is it because you aren’t used to this kind of writing, or is it honestly just useless? Clearly, Federman thought it was worth writing since he put so much effort into creating it, but would you write like this? Hopefully, the majority of your pondering wouldn’t be about noodles or toothpaste, but is what you’re thinking about at the time important to the piece? Do you think if Emily Bronte (actual Bronte—not some narrator she created) wrote down what she was thinking about as she wrote Wuthering Heights that your appreciation of the piece would be enhanced? Do you even care? How does the presence of the narrator influence your reading of Double or Nothing?