Matt’s comment > Likes and Comments
41 likes · Like
wow what a sense of the ending have you shared Matt...I had successfully convinced myself that Adrian and Sarah slept together and the result was the damaged child. This led to Adrian's guilt and he committed suicide because he was a righteous fellow but this logic doesn't explain Sarah's leaving the money to Tony and Veronica's "blood money" remark to Tony...but you have me rethinking and the more I think, the more I am convinced about your sense of the ending ;-)
matt, i agree. in fact, irony throughout the narrative attests to your interpretation. a couple examples--Tony recalls Old Joe Hunt saying that mental states can be inferred from actions. And then Tony remarks that, conversely, you can infer past actions from current mental states. He goes on--how we react to the damage: whether we admit it or repress it...those who repress to avoid further damage to themselves whatever the cost are the most ruthless and the ones to be careful of. Ha! Tony is talking about himself! On the next page he confesses: "You might even ask me to apply my theory to myself and explain what damage I had suffered a long way back and what its consequences might be: for instance, how it might affect my reliability and truthfulness. I'm not sure I could answer this, to be honest." And he's NOT honest; he's what Margaret calls Veronica--a fruitcake.
Matt - you've certainly explained the equation, the legacy, diary and "blood money" comment. I've returned my copy to the library - but I think I remember Tony noticing that Adrian Jr. was easily recognizable because he looked like Adrian. This scenario implies that Veronica was providing lovers for her mother. I was not certain of the term "lie in" - I thought might be a British term for sleeping in... but if it had a different meaning, it could be the whole family was involved in the mother's love life... quite a remote idea. Whatever the explanation, there is not enough character development to support the conventional conclusion or your, more thoughtful, conclusions.
Thank you for that explanation, I finished the book last night and thought the story had been left to the reader to conclude (a device I hate) but your explanation makes me want to change the rating I gave it. Thank you!
Another discrepancy that leads to Matt's conclusion: why would Adrian Jr. first recoil in the shop and then make known to the carer his discomfort at seeing Tony? We know that Adrian Jr. is out and about in public and runs into people all the time, but the carer goes out of his way to tell Tony that he, presumably just another stranger, is particularly irritating to Adrian Jr. Why would that be? Not because he wrote a bad letter 40 years ago to Adrian Jr.'s sister. Rather, it's because Matt is probably right, and that just after losing his mother, the "damaged" son is not so damaged as to not recognize his father in close proximity in a shop or a pub.
While I believe Matt is definitely correct -- I'm unsure why Adrian Jr would recognize his father. Had he been shown photographs of him throughout the years? It seems odd that they would allow Adrian Jr. to know who his father is, without the reverse being true.
Matt - Brilliant explanation. Now I also want to change my rant about the book. I think you're correct, and I like the book much more now.
Ha! Just what i thought, too! But I don't understand why Adrian Jr. was so upset by Tony's appearance.... Could it just be that he's ultra sensitive?
Just curious, did anyone come to the conclusion that this is just a really bad imitation of Kazuo Ishiguro with a lot of SAT words thrown in to disguise the ineptitude?
It's akin to viewing a painting done by a chimp rolling around on a canvas and being hoodwinked into believing that it is a Jackson Pollock.
I just finished it and what makes me agree with this interpretation is something no one has mentioned: that in the middle of presenting his version of events in the pub near the very end, when the carer asks him not to provoke Adrian (J.) further, the narrator inserts a perfectly mundane observation about the preferred saltiness of chips. The randomness and, in context, inappropriateness of this observation snapped my eyes open to the fact that his telling--his version--is not to be trusted. Brilliant reading.
Great reading! It gives a whole new meaning to Sarah serving Tony eggs and breaking a yolk.
This interpretation doesn’t work, the man is called Adrian and looks like Adrian, Tony can’t be the father.
Great analysis, Matt. I just finished it and came to a very similar concluson, which I now realize is the only conclusion. Thank you for crystalizing my thoughts for me. Looking through the general reviews, I'd say that most readers have missed or overlooked Barnes' feint, which is fascinating considering that missing or overlooking is the theme of the book itself.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Suchandra
(new)
Oct 18, 2012 03:14AM
wow what a sense of the ending have you shared Matt...I had successfully convinced myself that Adrian and Sarah slept together and the result was the damaged child. This led to Adrian's guilt and he committed suicide because he was a righteous fellow but this logic doesn't explain Sarah's leaving the money to Tony and Veronica's "blood money" remark to Tony...but you have me rethinking and the more I think, the more I am convinced about your sense of the ending ;-)
reply
|
flag
wow. yeah. fascinating. i have to reread it now...
matt, i agree. in fact, irony throughout the narrative attests to your interpretation. a couple examples--Tony recalls Old Joe Hunt saying that mental states can be inferred from actions. And then Tony remarks that, conversely, you can infer past actions from current mental states. He goes on--how we react to the damage: whether we admit it or repress it...those who repress to avoid further damage to themselves whatever the cost are the most ruthless and the ones to be careful of. Ha! Tony is talking about himself! On the next page he confesses: "You might even ask me to apply my theory to myself and explain what damage I had suffered a long way back and what its consequences might be: for instance, how it might affect my reliability and truthfulness. I'm not sure I could answer this, to be honest." And he's NOT honest; he's what Margaret calls Veronica--a fruitcake.
Matt - you've certainly explained the equation, the legacy, diary and "blood money" comment. I've returned my copy to the library - but I think I remember Tony noticing that Adrian Jr. was easily recognizable because he looked like Adrian. This scenario implies that Veronica was providing lovers for her mother. I was not certain of the term "lie in" - I thought might be a British term for sleeping in... but if it had a different meaning, it could be the whole family was involved in the mother's love life... quite a remote idea. Whatever the explanation, there is not enough character development to support the conventional conclusion or your, more thoughtful, conclusions.
Thank you for that explanation, I finished the book last night and thought the story had been left to the reader to conclude (a device I hate) but your explanation makes me want to change the rating I gave it. Thank you!
Another discrepancy that leads to Matt's conclusion: why would Adrian Jr. first recoil in the shop and then make known to the carer his discomfort at seeing Tony? We know that Adrian Jr. is out and about in public and runs into people all the time, but the carer goes out of his way to tell Tony that he, presumably just another stranger, is particularly irritating to Adrian Jr. Why would that be? Not because he wrote a bad letter 40 years ago to Adrian Jr.'s sister. Rather, it's because Matt is probably right, and that just after losing his mother, the "damaged" son is not so damaged as to not recognize his father in close proximity in a shop or a pub.
While I believe Matt is definitely correct -- I'm unsure why Adrian Jr would recognize his father. Had he been shown photographs of him throughout the years? It seems odd that they would allow Adrian Jr. to know who his father is, without the reverse being true.
Matt - Brilliant explanation. Now I also want to change my rant about the book. I think you're correct, and I like the book much more now.
Ha! Just what i thought, too! But I don't understand why Adrian Jr. was so upset by Tony's appearance.... Could it just be that he's ultra sensitive?
Just curious, did anyone come to the conclusion that this is just a really bad imitation of Kazuo Ishiguro with a lot of SAT words thrown in to disguise the ineptitude?
It's akin to viewing a painting done by a chimp rolling around on a canvas and being hoodwinked into believing that it is a Jackson Pollock.
I just finished it and what makes me agree with this interpretation is something no one has mentioned: that in the middle of presenting his version of events in the pub near the very end, when the carer asks him not to provoke Adrian (J.) further, the narrator inserts a perfectly mundane observation about the preferred saltiness of chips. The randomness and, in context, inappropriateness of this observation snapped my eyes open to the fact that his telling--his version--is not to be trusted. Brilliant reading.
Great reading! It gives a whole new meaning to Sarah serving Tony eggs and breaking a yolk.
This interpretation doesn’t work, the man is called Adrian and looks like Adrian, Tony can’t be the father.
Great analysis, Matt. I just finished it and came to a very similar concluson, which I now realize is the only conclusion. Thank you for crystalizing my thoughts for me. Looking through the general reviews, I'd say that most readers have missed or overlooked Barnes' feint, which is fascinating considering that missing or overlooking is the theme of the book itself.
