Ana María Correa from Out of the Woods Now weighs in for Round Three: (see also Round One, Round Two)
Since finishing the book last December, I've been bothered by a vague sense of unease: Did I just not get it? Were there secret clues embedded in Blue's illustrations and the "Final Exam" that I simply didn't pick up on? This isn't unlikely. (I'm one of those readers who did not immediately catch on to the fact that John Barth's "Night-Sea Journey" is not about running salmon.) I examined the ink drawings carefully, the Final Exam, and even some of the citations. Was there a hidden code? Something that would spell out the actual "truth" of the matter? A final, undiscovered revelation that would clear everything up?
I immediately went back and reread certain sections and even examined the book's website. I realized I was left with three options:
a) There is an alternate Solution and I'm just not sharp enough to see it.
b) There is no alternate Solution (i.e., Blue is right), but the end is supposed to be ambiguous. (The reader should content herself with not having a final answer.)
c) There is no alternate Solution, Blue is right, and the reader disagrees with Blue at her own peril (i.e., the ambiguity will leave you spinning in circles. This option is also known as "Pessl playing dirty").
Since reading others' reactions, I'm beginning to understand that the answer might be "c" (in spite of hoping that it's "a"). Although I nearly always give the author the benefit of the doubt and am more than willing to admit to misreadings (see Barth), the overwhelming evidence in favor of Blue's ultimate conclusions (the reveal) and the threadbare nature of the novel's ambiguity merely left me feeling cheated. Callie put it this way:
Pessl's big "reveal" at the end leaves me feeling less in awe of the trick played on me (which, when done well, is sublime) and more irritated that a trick has been played at all. That I might have even been, perhaps, the butt of the joke.
It's the nature of the chapter titles that clued me in on this potentially maddening lack of specificity. The "syllabus" chapter titles, which include everything from "Chapter #6: BRAVE NEW WORLD, Aldous Huxley" to "Chapter #34: PARADISE LOST, John Milton," relate to their respective chapters thematically--and pretty loosely, at that. That is, while I initially expected to have additional insight into a chapter based on knowledge of its referent title, I soon learned that this is not what's going on. There are no specific clues to be found, merely wry smiles at the loose (and in some instances very loose) thematic relation between a chapter title and its actual content.
I initially thought that the Final Exam worked the same way--items to get you thinking, but not, ultimately, take you anywhere (other than to Blue's solution). But in reading her interview with Emily Gould in Bookslut, I'm beginning to wonder. Pessl admits that the ending was difficult for her to write. All well and good. But then there's this irritating little exchange:
I think you’re not going to tell me, but I have to ask you this...how did Hannah Schneider die? The book ends in a multiple-choice final exam that gives three possibilities. But what really happened?
Oh, I just had the longest discussion about this! Yeah, I really can’t tell you.
Okay, okay. I thought so. It’s fine. I just had to try.
I understand. But it’s not fair to Blue. She is the storyteller; she has to be the expert. It’s not fair for you to know more than she does. But at the same time, there are clues throughout… you might be able to piece it together better than Blue. Everything that you need in order to answer the final exam is in the book.
Irritating because in spite of all of my personal conclusions (basically, I agree with Blue), I still have the feeling that I'm just NOT GETTING IT.
Of course, it doesn't help that in one spot on the novel's official website we find the line, "Special Topics in Calamity Physics: Apply it to life at your own risk," and then in the cleverly devised Cliffs Notes (lured by such section titles as "Secret Codes, Motifs, Chess Patterns and a List of Hidden Clues" and "What Really Happened to Hannah Schneider") we discover that "Unfortunately, in life there are no shortcuts."
Huh. Okay...
And I'm a little annoyed that I sound so annoyed. When it comes to books, I'm up for just about anything. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and play along with authorial quirks. Blue didn't bug me (nor did her endless citations). Her dad didn't bug me. The Bluebloods and Hannah didn't bug me (well, maybe just a little). So why do I sound so snippy? I think part of the reason is the unfair expectations I had going into it. With all the myriad comparisons to Donna Tartt's The Secret History, I thought I was in for something much more tightly structured--something that would tie in all of the novel's major players. Unfortunately, the Bluebloods serve no purpose in the "twist" other than to heighten Blue's alienation and disintigrate her already fractured peace of mind. (Again, I'm very willing to admit to being wrong here.) Nevertheless, this made me feel she was even more reliable as a narrator, not less.
As I've mentioned before, I was led to believe that the "Final Exam" was some sort of Encyclopedia Brown-type revelation end section. It's not. Or is it? Can anyone prove a different theory (any theory)? I'd love to read what you have to say...
