Laurie’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Not sure what evidence you are using to determine that Andy was the murderer. It doesn't really make much sense to do that, especially since intimidation from the prosecutor's office would be sufficient.
I was thinking this more from a plot standpoint. Andy is clearly able to tell lies to himself and others; to me that makes it possible for him to be an unreliable narrator. Andy knew to get rid of the knife he found in Jacobs drawer, he also stated once that he jogged that path in the morning, he was fiercely protective of Jacob and he was just so positive that Jacob didn't murder Ben. The best way for him to have been that positive was for him to have committed the crime himself. He certainly would have the knowledge base from his years as a prosecutor to cover his tracks.
In interviews with the author he actually shares that he brought the "murder gene" plot line into the story, because he wanted to show that it is one small thing that makes up an individual's behavior. It doesn't cause anything or trigger anything, but *may* make someone more susceptible towards violence. "May" being the key word - since science is still debating it. I think based on that interview and on other things he said (complimentary) re: Andy, I don't think Andy did commit a murder.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
☯Emily
(new)
Oct 11, 2014 03:37AM
Not sure what evidence you are using to determine that Andy was the murderer. It doesn't really make much sense to do that, especially since intimidation from the prosecutor's office would be sufficient.
reply
|
flag
I was thinking this more from a plot standpoint. Andy is clearly able to tell lies to himself and others; to me that makes it possible for him to be an unreliable narrator. Andy knew to get rid of the knife he found in Jacobs drawer, he also stated once that he jogged that path in the morning, he was fiercely protective of Jacob and he was just so positive that Jacob didn't murder Ben. The best way for him to have been that positive was for him to have committed the crime himself. He certainly would have the knowledge base from his years as a prosecutor to cover his tracks.
In interviews with the author he actually shares that he brought the "murder gene" plot line into the story, because he wanted to show that it is one small thing that makes up an individual's behavior. It doesn't cause anything or trigger anything, but *may* make someone more susceptible towards violence. "May" being the key word - since science is still debating it. I think based on that interview and on other things he said (complimentary) re: Andy, I don't think Andy did commit a murder.
