Something about the whole thing makes me wonder if it is really all as cut and dried as he describes when tying things up at the end. Could it be that Wade was actually right about the conspiracy, and we are only seeing/hearing a distorted version of events from the brother?
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
Ah, Slacker, there you have the big question in all first-person fiction: who the heck is this storyteller, and how truthful is the story (s)he's telling? I'm pulling the book out tonight!
shareCool, let me know!
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
I felt like his brother was trying to steer him down the wrong path.
He was the one who brought up the accident/murder again after Wade had forgotten about it.
Yeah, something fishy there.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
Popper said it and I think that is one of the main points of the book and the movie. It was an illusion that Rolfe was the functional one and had learned the right way to deal with the violence, but he just had a different way of handling it. He lived in an intellectual cloud and he did just as much damage as Wade by goading him into that conspiracy theory after Wade decided to drop it. He was just as "afflicted" as Wade.
sharewhat a bunch of *beep*
share