Some Remainders about "Remainder"

            McCarthy's narrator in Remainder suffered from an extremely traumatic event.  In effect, this event establishes a sort of barrier in the life of the narrator; events before the accident are only remembered in part, and the narrator is constantly searching to reproduce the feeling of events that took place before his accident.  This interests me for a few reasons.  First, there is the ubiquitous question:  Can we (as Humans) have authentic experiences?  Second, I think the narrator's traumatic barrier is only partially related to the physicality of his injuries.

            The first question is definitely a universal, philosophical question that Remainder tries to answer, but what I find most interesting is this barrier that the narrator has between experiences he has before the accident, while trying to reproduce those experiences (and feelings) after the accident.  I have known a few people, who have not been victim to any sort of physical trauma, that have been driven by the same sort of search for authenticity that the narrator is looking for.  In fact, after a massively traumatic event in our lives, it seems only Human that we might seek comfort in how we remember we felt before the event, and to even seek out how to recreate that feeling--it's just that most of us don't have millions of dollars to throw around (and we realize that moving on is a powerful thing, hopefully).  Why is it that some people seem obsessed with re-creating the past?  Whether it's the spouse who cheats on their partner and wants to put the pieces back together, or the accident victim wanting to recover portions of lost memory, or someone with PTSD who is tormented by the past, but can't seem to escape reliving it--for some it seems like something they cannot control.

            I also wanted to talk about Naz.  On an authorial level, what a brilliant device to enable the narrator to carry out these grandiose plans.  But despite McCarthy's genius using Naz to facilitate all this crazy stuff, I'm a little perplexed by his character.  He's introduced as a Brahmin, traditionally the highest caste in India, but was also the priest caste; only Brahmins can traditionally become clergy.  I find that pretty interesting since Naz is able to arrange or acquire virtually anything the narrator wants--even offering to arrange having people killed.  What might McCarthy be trying to say about religion and divinity by very intentionally tying Naz to priesthood?