1. Below is an excerpt from a 2007 interview with O'Brien which delves into the issue of ambiguity that I ended up talking about in all of the groups reading this book. After reading O'Brien's thoughts, discuss how he compounds mystery in his novels (can discuss Things They Carried also).
Have you come to appreciate [ambiguity] more and more as life has gone on? Or have you always been someone who's seen ambiguity in the world?
For my whole life, I remember being tantalized by the Alamo, because there's such an absence of much record of what occurred there in the final hours. Even from the Mexican side, there's very little testimony, some, but not a lot. I'm tantalized by what happened in those final hours of Custer's Last Stand or what happened to Amelia Earhart. I'm tantalized by the Kennedy assassination--not so much asking "did Oswald act alone?" but "what were Kennedy's last thoughts as he was cruising down that street in Dallas? What was in his mind? Dinner that night? Nothing?" These things are unknown and probably unknowable, and for many of us they're frustrating. We build religions to explain the unknowable, sometimes very odd religions, as a way of firming up the boundaries and saying, "Ah, I do know. Even if it's known only through faith, it's known."
I don't go for that. Maybe it's a tempermental thing, I suppose, but I'd prefer to have the mystery expanded as opposed than firmed up. That is to say, I want the mystery to get bigger and deeper and deeper. Hence, in all of my books, the character's problem, whatever it may be early on is not resolved in the end, it's compounded. By the end of the book, the mystery is only deeper. In the Lake of the Woods is the best example, but it's true also of [Going After] Cacciato and it's true of The Things They Carried. It's probably true of all my books, because that's the human being I am: I'm not an explainer or a tidier-upper, I'm a messer-upper, and by temperment I look for complication maybe where others probably don't.
So ambiguity is reassuring to you.
I love it. I love the feel of it because it has a hopeful sense of discovery at the end. It hasn't been discovered, but it might come around tomorrow, or the next day. It gives me a reason to draw the next breath, and light the next cigarette, and take the next step through life. I like that things haven't been neatly tidied up two decades ago or two centuries ago, but still remain open to us. There is something about the unknown that--even though it's frustrating to all of us--that's incredibly fascinating. All you need to do is turn on the History Channel for evidence of my proposition, in the latest show on Lizzie Borden or Amelia Earhart. We're fascinated by what's just beyond our grasp. We're always going after it like we're chasing a butterfly with a net, and the butterfly is just a little too small and fits right through the little spaces in the net, and we can't quite catch it, but by God we love chasing it. What we're chasing--at least, what I'm chasing--is that mutating thing we call the human spirit.
2. Compare the journey into the heart of darkness taken by Marlow in Heart of Darkness and that taken by the narrator of In The Lake of the Woods.
2. Compare the journey into the heart of darkness taken by Marlow in Heart of Darkness and that taken by the narrator of In The Lake of the Woods.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought the book was excellent until the end. The constant stream of scenarios of what could've happened to Kathy kept my mind churning. I was looking forward to the end of the book revealing what really happened and making all the seemingly random evidence make sense. But it didn't. It was as if the book was cut off mid-stream. The ambiguity that Tim thrives off of absolutely kills me. I'm not sure if it's because of my generation being more fact based and to the point whereas older generations seem to be more imaginative and less definitive. Anyway, what I felt to be an excellent book was absolutely ruined by the ending, or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteGive me some closure, Tim!
-Zane
Personally, I loved the mystery surrounding the plot and the whereabouts of Kathy's disappearance. I agree with Zane that the ending was completely and utterly frustrating, but it didn't ruin the book for me - in fact, the more I contemplated the ambiguous ending, the more fitting it became in my mind. I think the sense of mystery would have been lost had we truly figured out what happened to Kathy. The constant flashbacks, the "Hypothesis" chapters backed up witch chapters of pure evidence kept my mind wheeling in an effort to come up with my own inference about the disappearance of Kathy. "Maybe" and "perhaps" were almost abused throughout the book, further adding a subtle air of uncertainty and pure speculation. It seems to me that O'Brien writes as a realistic writer - besides the obvious fact that he draws his writing from real life occurrences, one can never be sure about where life is going to lead you, and I think that's something O'Brien was trying to convey in the last few pages of the book.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you guys think happened to Kathy? From the beginning, I always thought that John had killed her - the next to last hypothesis was almost exactly what had bubbled to my mind after learning more about John's past and knack of erasing unpleasant memories from his mind..
I agree with Grace about the ambiguity of the novel. It was masterfully done with the different types of chapters, such as the Hypothesis, Nature of the..., and Evidence. After reading the interview, I began to understand O'Brien's style a little better because I had never really understood why he loved leaving the reader in the shadow. I do have to say that the ending was very frustrating as I threw the book down in my Statistics class because I was so angry, but nevertheless, it was fitting. O'Brien's timing with the Evidence chapters and how he incorporated actual history into the book to show similar problems and events that occurred in the past helped broaden my knowledge and understand a little bit of what Wade went through. Even though O'Brien meticulously portrayed almost every aspect of John Wade's life, I still felt an air of mystery around him. There was still so much I didn't know about him or frankly, any of the characters, especially Kathy. As much as I wanted to know what happened to Kathy, it is very appropriate to the style and to O'Brien for the book to end in complete mystery as it began.
ReplyDeleteGrace, I too believe that John Wade killed Kathy. Granted, I do not believe it was on purpose. I think he went into his little crazy mode and took the boiling water a bit too far.
On a side note, this book was good for me to read as I do head into the military. I hope I never have to encounter anything like Vietnam, but who knows what we will be engaged in militarily in 5 years? We could be at peace, or fighting the war of our generation. It was just kind of depressing to see the effect of war on just one person. In, The Things They Carried, O'Brien scatters the effect of war onto many different people, but in, In the Lake of the Woods, O'Brien focuses the effects of the war solely on John Wade. Just a thought.
I think I'm one of the only people that saw this book in this light. I think that throughout the gagillion different scenarios of what happened to Kathy, each one attributes to my opinion that John is actually insane and each scenario given is to prove his insanity. I seriously thought that the confusion in this book was too good to be true, so the only logical response, to me, would be to pledge John's insanity for him. The ending, like the other's have said completely threw me off, but still adds to my idea of the too good to be true! Honestly, how can Timmy write all of these wild strings and not tie them at the end. My literary shoe has fallen off. I dislike you Tim O'Brien.
ReplyDeleteWith Love and Arm Claps,
Gideon