Others, like critic Mark Felton of The Literary Review , have dismissed it as "an elaborate hoax or a schizophrenic’s notebook." He points out that no one has proven the manuscript is from the 1970s or 80s; carbon dating of the paper suggests it could have been written as late as 2005.
But the most compelling theory comes from independent scholar Mira Tchen, who suggests that Eva Blume is not a person, but a method . "The 'Second Entry' is an instruction manual for how to survive the erasure of self," Tchen writes. "Eva doesn’t want you to know who she is. She wants you to ask why you need to know at all." The manuscript breaks off mid-sentence in both columns. The left column writes: "I am closing the diary for good. The flower has served its purpose." The right column, in increasingly smaller handwriting, replies: "The flower has no purpose. Only the root. And the root is..." in blume second entry eva blume
In a breathtaking chapter titled "The Root System," the "Echo" column confesses something the original novel only hinted at: Eva Blume is not the diarist’s real name. It is a persona she adopted after a childhood accident. "Blume" (flower) was a lie she told so beautifully that she forgot she was a weed. Others, like critic Mark Felton of The Literary