Is this the twist at the end?

The credits say in order of appearance and he's the second name after Dennis Quaid. I can't see him unless he's in the audience????

That could be be I believe the whole rory story happened to clay including the old man

Found John Hannah ...never would have recognized him!

Well I thought that Clay was Rory. So everything that happened to Rory, including meeting the old man, was what happened to Clay. But I get this might be too obvious.



Dumbledore: "Lily... after all this time?"
Snape: "Always."

Zack: I think so. toward the end they talk about the fine line between life and fiction. he had said earlier that he was separated. so i thought that the reality was, he was alone and in despair, but the fictional ending is a bit sad, but uplifting.

I thought the three guys were all real: Clay Hammond wrote the story of Rory, who was an autobiographical figure of himself, who in turn plagiarized the story from the old man.

I didn't get it that hammond modified the story with the old man's meeting, to prove his legitimacy. I thought his other two novels were really quite good, but he would never think them good enough. I will watch it again to see if i get your version of the old man's meeting clay.

I really loved the music, too..

I read everywhere about the ending and I'm really confused about the end..Does the old man really exist or is it just a made up character by Clay?

Well, I find this plot to be fairly simple. Clay is Rory, and this book he wrote is his only way to express without any possible serious repercussions what he had done. Clay and Dora probably couldn’t handle looking at each the same way after knowing the reality about those words.

And…. I think I have proof to back the fact that Clay could be Rory. There’s a scene in the movie in which you can see Rory thinking in front of the book, computer and other things in his desk. Just behind him, by the side of a few books, you can see two baseballs. One that has the appearance of barely having been used and another which seems very old and heavily used. When Daniela seats on Clay’s desk, she grabs a baseball which is seating by the side of another one. Those two balls are exactly the same ones that Rory always kept by his desk. Another piece of evidence is, when Dora seats on Rory’s lap to kiss him while he’s writing on his computer. During the scene, you can see their kitchen at the right. They have a white coffee boiler on top of their stove. In the scene when Clay goes down to get wine for him and Daniel, he goes by he’s stove and on top of it, theres that same white coffee boiler. And of course, can’t leave out the part when Daniela is looking at the books pages and finds a picture of a woman that seems to be Dora at an old age, about the same as Clay.

All that evidence plus the mysterious conversation between Clay and Daniela, point at the highly probable fact that after years knowing the reality about a book he copied, Clay found a way to tell everything to the world with a fiction cover up.

This movie was incredible and this are all conclusions.

Just watched it and reading all the comments in the thread made me think that while it is plausible that the author in fact told his own story of plagiarism, the meaning may also be more subtle, as in: you can start doubting yourself and feeling like a fraud as part of a psychological process while trying to create something (a work of art, a story). Describing this process in a story about plagiarism and doubts and inner struggle kind of means describing the insecurities in the life of a writer or a creative person in general, thus showing the inner life of a writer, which is full of struggle with self and the environment.