I just don't understand why Alexie doesn't name the killer. The story was good, a quick read up until the end. It provided no closure whatsoever. As a book over all, I was confused. Nothing ever connected.
It drove me crazy. I feel like the chapters with Mark Jones describing the feathered creature and the last chapter about the killer don't go with the rest of the book in the sense that it's more mysterious than the rest of Alexie's writing. The book seemed unfinished without naming the killer.
and Lex, if the author's point was to frustrate his readers thus lowering the popularity of his work, then he isn't a very good businessman. Obviously, this sort of ending might cause a decline in profit and book sales. so no Lex.
I actually kind of liked this book until the end. When they leave you with nothing it seems like its just a cop out of an ending. He's writing and writing and just wants to finish the book so he uses the easiest ending possible...very weak in my opinion.
He wants to be different. A definitive ending is too cliche, maybe he doesn't want to be typical. This way the book never really ends, so maybe he can write an "Indian Killer 2".
I agree with garret, maybe he just didn't know what to do, so he decided to make the ending ambiguous. I think he might have tried to make it deep, just because he couldn't decide who to make the killer.
i loved the end of the book. it keeps you thinking and always wondering who the indian killer was. it was kinda like a cohen brothers movie ending, such as there will be blood when no closure is really given to the audience. its a different kind of ending, but i enjoy it.
i agree it was a good book up until the end when u don't find out who the killer is. i guess the point of the story was not to be a murder mystery as much as it was about racism.
11 comments:
Well, that's the point
It drove me crazy. I feel like the chapters with Mark Jones describing the feathered creature and the last chapter about the killer don't go with the rest of the book in the sense that it's more mysterious than the rest of Alexie's writing. The book seemed unfinished without naming the killer.
AGREED MARIANNA!
and Lex, if the author's point was to frustrate his readers thus lowering the popularity of his work, then he isn't a very good businessman. Obviously, this sort of ending might cause a decline in profit and book sales. so no Lex.
I actually kind of liked this book until the end. When they leave you with nothing it seems like its just a cop out of an ending. He's writing and writing and just wants to finish the book so he uses the easiest ending possible...very weak in my opinion.
He wants to be different. A definitive ending is too cliche, maybe he doesn't want to be typical. This way the book never really ends, so maybe he can write an "Indian Killer 2".
i agree with daniel the ending was from the machine. the author never had to connect anything he just made the ending stupid. cop out in my opinion.
I agree with garret, maybe he just didn't know what to do, so he decided to make the ending ambiguous. I think he might have tried to make it deep, just because he couldn't decide who to make the killer.
i loved the end of the book. it keeps you thinking and always wondering who the indian killer was. it was kinda like a cohen brothers movie ending, such as there will be blood when no closure is really given to the audience. its a different kind of ending, but i enjoy it.
i believe that we don't know anything about the killer. the way i took it none of the characters we read about are the killer, unless it is Reggie.
i agree it was a good book up until the end when u don't find out who the killer is. i guess the point of the story was not to be a murder mystery as much as it was about racism.
Post a Comment