Special Topics Roundtable - Part Three: In which we examine the juxtaposition of readerly expectations and writerly ambiguity

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...

Comments

[DJ Cayenne]

I saw Pessl read last night here in Atlanta. I talked with her at length about some of my theories and got some answers from the general Q&A as well.

First, I've read too much into the "fake" references. Pessl says that she had fun creating references that sounded plausible while also being witty. She thought that just playing it straight on the citations would have been very dry. She says that Blue spent most of her life with books as her only friends. The references are used more often early in the book as Blue hides behind them, like a security blanket. The use of the citations drops off as the story unfolds as Blue becomes more comfortable with herself and more confident in the telling of her story.

I asked her about Blue's reliability as a narrator. Before she gave me a straight answer, she made me work for it. I had to explain my theories, I thought that Blue was hiding something or that Blue had failed to make some of the connections in the book that the reader may pick up on, etc. She beamed at the idea that some things have gotten past Blue and told me that I was onto something there. She also told me that she thought that Blue was otherwise a fairly reliable narrator.

My wife asked her a pointed question about what happens after the book, which I can't reveal without providing a major spoiler. Pessl did mention that someone will make a cameo in her next book (which will be unrelated to this one) that may provide some "closure."

My wife and I went to dinner afterwards and thought about some of the connections that Blue may have missed. The gardener that shows up at their house after being shot comes to mind. What else may have gotten past her?

Ana Maria, I didn't think that the quiz was meant to provide the answers. (Love the Encyclopedia Brown reference!) I thought that it did a nice job of framing some of the connections, ambiguities, and possible interpretations of the book. I may be alone in this regard.

I'll have a post on the rest of the news from the reading on my site later today.

[amcorrea]

This is great info, thanks!

Actually, I completely agree with your estimation of the Final Exam--I was mainly referring to what I was led to believe from the reviews...and my frustration with the latter issue here:

"She beamed at the idea that some things have gotten past Blue and told me that I was onto something there. She also told me that she thought that Blue was otherwise a fairly reliable narrator."

This encapsulates my issue with the book very well. I understand that the reader can pick up on more "clues" than Blue immediately sees, but if the solution is the SAME in any case, why is everything so coy and mysterious? Why are we left guessing even when we reach the same conclusion Blue does after examining the evidence? It was my refusal to believe that she was doing this to her readers that led me doubt that Blue's solution is incorrect--even though I agree with Blue.

[amcorrea]

Make that--"that led me to doubt that Blue's solution is correct".

[DJ Cayenne]

As the book's seemingly lone supporter, I guess I'll take a stab at your last question.

IMHO, I liked that the book was coy and mysterious. If it had an unambiguous "the butler did it" ending, it would have been less interesting to me. I've agreed with Blue, I've disagreed with Blue, I've thought that Blue was hiding something - I've changed opinions several times after reading the book a year ago.

I don't feel that Pessl is being fundamentally dishonest with her readers, as some clearly do. I think that she intended to keep the resolution as vague as possible so that conversations like this one would continue on.

At least that's the version of events that has kept me in the "pro" camp amid such formidable opposition.

[callie]

It's an interesting discussion. I, too, don't love that Pessl leaves it so wide open - it seems a convenient after-the-fact way to make all of it seem by design, when it could really be that she just didn't wrap up the book properly. You can't call her on that because she can defer to the "can't tell you more than what Blue knows" and so on. That's what irks me...I can't sort out if the mysteriousness was truly intentional, or a nice way to elude critical discussion now that it's been printed.

[DJ Cayenne]

In baseball, borderline pitches will be called as strikes more often for the pitcher that has demonstrated to the umpire that he/she has command of his pitches - if you'll pardon the sports analogy. And to extend it: it sounds like I am willing to make that call, while others are not so sure that Pessl has shown command of her pitches. It's subjective (for both the reader and the umpire) and ultimately just part of the game.

[callie]

I think the true test is "did the ending satisfy?", knowing full well that what satisfies me as a reader is not what satisfies everyone else. For some, unanswered questions are good (and in many cases, I prefer this...I hate being led to the answer as if I'm a dimwit), for others, they need everthing neatly wrapped up. I think many of us reside in the gray area (I can be swayed into liking all kinds of endings if I feel they do the book justice) and so much of it depends on all that came before.

With Special Topics, the sheer heft of it made me want more at the end. Period. I sat there with these characters for a very long time. I took Pessl's long, circuitous ride. I expected something larger in return. Don't get me wrong - even if there were still as many questions left dangling, unanswered, I would have been okay with that. It's just that I, personally, wasn't okay with it in this case. I didn't buy the ending.

On a larger scale (and I think a Round Five post might be brewing here), I have to wonder what does it mean? Why is this book important? What does it tell us about our lives? Our selves? Our world? I don't think it tells us a whole lot about a whole lot...THAT is a big concern for me. THAT is something I had hoped would become clearer by the end. What is the larger comment, then, with so many unknowns? Dads will leave you for no good reason? Some cliques can be dangerous? People are not what they seem to be? Surely that can't be the point. I'm not saying that all books need to be truly important in big "what does this mean for society?" ways -- but again, for the heft of it, I expected more than a romp. More than an upheaval of Blue's life only to be left with the upheaval that wasn't even her doing.

Either way, the discussion of all this is wonderful. It is all so subjective and hearing different thoughts, angles, viewpoints has been great so far. Thank you -- even if you feel you are the lone dissenting voice at the moment!

[erin]

The team behind Half Nelson is going to be adapting Special Topics for film.

Details here: http://www.movieweb.com/news/27/20127.php

Ryan Fleck IMDB here:
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0281396/

Seems like a very interesting pairing to me.

[amcorrea]

In that Bookslut interview, Pessl admits, "Endings are horrible. It’s like landing a plane. In the first draft, the ending was a disaster. By the time I got there, I was like, 'I don’t care! Other books have bad endings -- mine can too! It’s only my first novel -- this is fine.'" But then she works on it more because her agent (rightly) pushed her to do better. I think this is pretty telling in light of our current conversation.

I guess it comes down to the fact that I enjoyed reading this book and wish that the ending either led readers to an entirely different conclusion from Blue's (one that readers would have to piece together themselves) OR was intentionally ambiguous and we would just have to be content with not knowing. Either of these scenarios would've worked for me. (Of course, the Blue-being-right scenario works too.)

The problem is that it's ambiguous about being ambiguous. As it was, I felt castigated for not "trying harder"--although I *did* try and wound up in the same place as Blue.

But. I'm willing to look past all this and try it Pessl's way--something you started doing, DJ, in your reference to the Mysterious Peruvian Gardener (a chapter which made me smile). What clues is Pessl alluding to when she says that we could "piece it together better than Blue"?

[amcorrea]

Erin, I think it'll make a fun film--thanks for the news. I can already see the sequence in which Blue "remembers" all those clues she missed in a rapid flashback montage...

[callie]

I'm willing to try it Pessl's way too (since I believe we've flogged every other way to pieces): what clues is Pessl alluding to when she says we could "piece it all together better than Blue?"

I'll be back a bit later in the day with some "finds" from the text as I hunt back through it.

[Darby]

Was the ending that ambiguous? I don't remember. I mean, I don't remember it being so ambiguous. And, well, I don't remember.

Of course, at this point, I don't remember much at all about the book. Other than that I liked it well enough when I read it and I was pleased that the end twisted because it felt like a reward and that I was annoyed as hell afterward that it took 350 pages for the story to get moving and that I'd hated all the endless citations and all the "My daddy is a super-duper daddy!" stuff until I found out that the dad was actually sort of important for reasons I had not foreseen, and even then, god, shut up about your dad, already. Plus I still wished someone would have just blacked out the citations for me in my library copy--the literary rhythmic effect was that of a long drive in a car that required refueling every ten miles.

But I don't think I remember reading the end as being somehow open-ended. I'd need to re-read the book to substantiate that take, though, and to even explain how I read the end, but, no. The book annoyed me enough I don't want to go back through it again. So maybe I missed just how much I might have missed? Or, not. Dunno.

(Sorry if I've retreaded any well-beaten ground here.)

[Darby]

Also:

"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."

I guess Pessl's not a Kazuo Ishiguro fan?

[DJ Cayenne]

On the Peruvian Gardener: Our thinking (my wife and I) was that Blue's imagining that she saw him several times over her life at the Wal-Mart and other places might be one of those connections that Blue doesn't catch. Maybe she did actually spot him when he attempting to make contact with Garreth over the years. His showing up shot at their home seems to be less accidental if viewed in that light. Then again, who would want to shoot him in Garreth's shadow world? Is it incidental that the guy she falls for that appears to be so different from her father is exactly like her father (though unknown to her)?

Callie: you raise an interesting point. When I'm describing books, I like to talk about them in terms of their themes, e.g., it's a meditation on memory and loss and redemption and whatever. I'm not sure what I'd say about Special Topics. Is Special Topics more than just a mystery novel?