How we organize the world is critical to our understanding of it. More to the point, we have the ability to organize the world any way we see fit. This may be conventional, but it may be entirely unconventional. Either way, we benefit from being freed from constraints. The implied metamorphosis that Arthur has undergone, for example, is to understand the best way for him to write. He will be better, more expressive, with greater clarity, if he follows his own path rather than one that has been laid out for him. The same is true for the second person in Phantoms -- that person might choose to see phantoms as they exist, and accept that existence as a normal part of life, rather than some freaky exception. If we all did that, phantoms would just be a normal part of the world -- it would not be a question of believing in them or not -- it would simply be a matter of looking at them. This may well hold true also for thought patterns and one's sensory perceptions, seeking to interpret for the internal audience what in this world is real and what is not, only to find the task futile. Conclusions

There are broad lesson to be taken away from these essays. They both carry with them a message about leveraging one's ability to act as intermediary with the world to fit the world to us -- what works best for us will set us free and that none should fear being themselves in that way. If there is a unique or different approach, there is nothing wrong with that. If time and order are no longer relevant -- if time has indeed become liquid -- then we have truly begun to perceive the world in a different way, but one that offers us substantial insights we could not have otherwise gained.

The authors reinforce...

Had their essays been clumsy, the effort would surely have failed, but these were successful pieces that made the points clearly. They argue against conventional wisdom by showing the value in other perspectives. Both narrators strongly value their viewpoints, even if they are unconventional, and that lesson could only be reinforced through successfully practicing what one preaches.
Arthur displays skill in alternating between his internal monologue and external descriptors. By the same token, Millhauser has multiple perspectives and clear breaks between them in an approach that is unusual but effective. Their approaches are effective no doubt in part because the approach suits the author. If one is to be a successful writer, a worthy intermediary translating the world that exists in one's imagination to contextual relevance for the modern reader, then one needs to be true to one's approach and one's style. It is only by this way that the writer will excel, and find his or her voice. That is a clear takeaway from Arthur's work, and seeing the way that Millhauser tells an entirely different story an entirely different way but still delivers the same messages and the same themes really highlights how powerful the intermediary can be, and how differential execution of the intermediary role can completely shape our understanding of the world. Flowing from that, not only should every writer stay true to himself or herself, but every writer should also write, for there is no benefit in a paucity of ideas or viewpoints -- expression is the key and writers should uphold that principle above all else.