The Conclusion

As discussed above, there are many facets of this text which support its inclusion into the structure of genres, the cultural era in which it was written, even into its own structure (1). In covering Still Life's structural similarity to the works of Vonnegut, Thompson and Dahl, I sought (2) to explain the way in which Robbins' writing fit into that genre of work by way of his sarcasm, magical realism, and the life he lived which spawned such words. Having equated his work with that of those authors, I continued to explain how all four writers must therefor have created works which were indicative of the culture surrounding each author, thus cementing my argument that structuralism dictates they, and their work, are seamlessly integrated into said culture and are signs of its nature (3).
Continuing, my aim became to define the pack face of the Camel cigarettes as part of the very structure of our princess, Leigh-Cheri. The pack itself was, as Robbins intended, a structural facet of the culture in which Leigh-Sheri lived, it was an object as it was intended to be, although the cigarettes inside never reached their full potential (4). That world, though, was integrated into the princess by being none other than a mirror of her internal self, and a thing cannot exist without its opposite (5). As an analogy, a client-centered therapist mimicking her thoughts and feelings, not directing her but guiding her, repeating her own thoughts more clearly to her that she might understand her internal self more thoroughly, the world in the pack face became as much a part of the core of Leigh-Cheri as any experience she had ever lived, as any memory or scar the world had inflicted on her (6).
Later discussed was the relationship of Wrangle and the princess. Less the lovers themselves and more their relationship and the story of it were the focus of my claim that this novel was as much a love story as anything else, and bore signs of that genre. Further, the work was obviously as much a fairy tale romance as anything the Imagineers © of Disney ever put out (7), and worked itself like a burrowing Tombu fly (8) into the genre, becoming the eyesore of the field, though no less a part of it (9). Having defined it as such a fairy tale romance, I contended that the story was, as well, well-suited into the Northrop Frye theory of myths. An overview of the characteristics which fit Robbins into the same culture as Vonnegut, Thompson, and Dahl sufficiently defines why such a work would be sarcastic, tragic, romantic, and comedic enough to hold a spot in such a category, and thus define itself as having structural similarities to many works within the category (10).
Finally, I dissected what made Wrangle the outlaw he was, and what he was that defines him as the newest kind, the anti-outlaw. In the sense that an anti-hero is still a hero, Wrangle as an anti-outlaw is still an outlaw. In fact, he might be said to be the ultimate outlaw because he strives to create a world in which “outlawism” is not just a way of life, but the way of life. Classified as a fellow of the outlaws of Marvel and DC (11), as well as ancient outlaws like Robin Hood (12), Wrangle is easily identified as an outlaw, but of a strange new fabric.
The very structure of an outlaw is to be “other” where everyone else is a checked box, continuing neatly down the page, and to be Still Life with Woodpecker is not simply to check the final box, but to fill in the subsequent line and every margin. This novel is, of course, a work which shares many key structural elements with more traditional texts, but that is not what makes the work the bandit writing it is. It must be argued that it is related to the pirate works of its time, as well as the most common sappy and fantastical love stories, who don't simply check the most pompously traditional boxes, but in fact headed the creation of the form. The very text of Still Life is outlaw then, it has the characteristics of many text who would simply put their marks into appropriate cells, yet it has defined itself by what it chose to opine about itself on every line, in every available margin, and particularly on the pages headed “Do Not Write On This Page, For Official Use Only.” (13)

1Which would sound way better, had I not just covered that specific point... let's say, 50 times very recently
2 or, Pleaded the reader desperately to agree with me
3 Of course, now that I've said I'm right, I must be. Because if I'm not, existence will shortly undo itself
4 Aw, poor cancer sticks :(
5 thus disproving the rational behind Deconstructionism, good thing I didn't pick that criticism style, huh?
6 Many thanks to Professor Brady for making these arguments not only possible, but actually pretty damn logical
7 I apologize to the Imagineers (c)
8 Really, could I have chosen a better analogy here? I'm fairly impressed with my (opposite of) extensive knowledge of African skin-burrowing parasites. Turns out you can make one surface by holding a coke bottle full of cigarette smoke over the entry point. Cool, no?
9 I love you, Disney, a lot more than I'm making clear in this argument
10 Because there was SO much love in Vonnegut's novels...
11 Bernard Mickey Wrangle is not and never will be anywhere near as heroic as Batman or Wolverine, but I had to find someone brooding and heroic to compare him to. Sorry, Spidey, you just didn't make the cut.
12 Whom I would have discussed further, were it not for the fact that I might have accidentally included cruel Sir Hiss, the snake in the Disney cartoon version.
13 All in all, this final paragraph just stuns me. I have no idea where I came up with that whole "boxes and forms" metaphor, but I think it's awfully impressive that I did. Especially considering the current Tyler Durden Red tint my eyes are sporting