I claimed in part 2 that reformulation of a previous statement showed a productive attention to language. It could, of course, simply indicate that the writer had been sloppy the first time. But I don't think so.
The man whose Great Fall will come this day is an actor. His sleeping is acting and not acting. Like some actors in films his movements are second nature to him, without having been learned, which makes them, perhaps, natural. He is less a player of roles, the narrator claims, than anyone; and thus is is the perfect hero for this story.
If the writer who corrects his sentences is a better writer than one whose sentences seem perfect, then why not an actor as more straightforward than a non-actor?
Peter's sentences are, or at least can be, difficult. His thoughts take their time to appear through the physignomies of vocabulary and grammar.
The actor has quit acting because, the narrator writes, there are no more stories to tell, no more revelations possible, not even the revelation of a teaspoon that falls out of a hand to become a simile for a greater fall.
Loss of images (Bildverlust) is an ongoing theme in Peter's work.
Is that why he writes how he does? What he does? With the sentences he carves? Is that why the author in "The Moravian Night" gives up writing as this actor gives up acting.
Have they given up only the writing and acting that are no longer possible in exchange for writing and acting in ways that are no longer recognizable.
Thus the plots that take place in the sentences. Thus the sentences that are themselves flaneurs. Thus the novel in which the hero is still in bed with his eyes shut 13 pages into the novel.