The thought of a good life elucidated by the contentious standards of choices depicted by both Abdurrahman Zeitoun and Daniel Suelo on one part and Bill Clegg and Mathew Dickman on the other, where alienation from reality depicts the consequences of deviation from the descriptions. Although the characters define good life as a formation rooted in the freedom of the mind: where the mind is able to articulate what it deserves without any external aggression or influence whatsoever. The description of life is thus essentially rooted in formations that have little influence on the access to basic needs. The description of basic needs, which range from the spiritual aid to material goodies like housing and access to contemporary technology elucidated by correlations with money, alienates both Abdurrahman and Zeitoun to good life. On the other hand, the life of struggle with addictions alienates bill Clegg to the symptomatic realism of good life while Dickman is constrained to loneliness and separation from family support and care as factors that eliminate the essence of good life, which forms the essence of this paper (Dickman 53).
The common element in the lives depicted by these characters is the freedom of choice, where the likes of Abdurrahman and Suelo could decide to fend off from garbage and live in caves at the expense of the notion that good life. This conviction should therefore not be in association with material goodies like money. Additionally, the lives of the character like Bill Clegg are pinned onto the choice of freedom for addiction and use of drugs even after failed rehabilitation programs. This ravishes the need for spiritual intervention and consistent prayers for a rehabilitative program, which culminates to good life that is not pegged to drug addiction. Consequently, this is likened to the life of Mathew Dickman, who articulates good life in terms of the love for the world, where for instance, a father could be the source of good life to a daughter through making lunch packages, which elucidates the need for formation of associations unlike living as a distinct creature like Abdurrahman and Suelo (Suelo 87).
Consequently, the essence of good life might come about as a result of self declaration to live against the constraints of time and space, where the elemental part depicted by the life without money and possible resources that lead one to a life of sin, could lead to the comfort of the mind (Sundeen 65). This relates to the evident choices made by the likes of Abdurrahman and Zeitoun who decide and live in abject poverty since they understand that life with associations to money could be the source of deviations from the description of good life. In this regard, the materialistic things in the world are the sources of temptations. This is comparable to the lives of Bill and Dickman, who are iconic to the eudemonia synthesized by the access to happiness as a contributory factor to the elements of good life. The choice of happiness in this context is not limited to the source where Bill Clegg could find happiness in drugs and addictions (Clegg 143).
The articulation of the literary icons on the viability of good life emanates from spiritual intervention, close associations with peers, family and friends. While the buffers to good life would include working as a single identity, giving up to life with drugs. There also exists the essentiality of relocation to believe in the supreme deity for elimination of factors that deprive good life, where the most prevalent elements of good life depend on the freedom of the mind.