Ray asked:

This question contains spoilers… (view spoiler)

flag

6 likes · like
10 years ago
7 answers

To answer questions about The Sympathizer, please sign up.

Joe Kraus

This answer contains spoilers… (view spoiler)

flag

Heather

This answer contains spoilers… (view spoiler)

flag

Sunny Yu I think the ending section of the book is one of the best parts of the book. It serves as a reflection of the protagonist's identity, fear, guilt, and forgotten memory, and also brought to attention the final answer the Commissar has been looking for--Nothing. The "nothing" here is not only the literal nothing but also individualism. This is because in the first chapter of the book, the nameless protagonist called himself nothing. In the book, his name is never revealed, and his very identity is being torn apart. The "nothing" here refers to the opposite of collectivism, which is individualism, and that is the answer to the question what is more precious than freedom and independence.
Also, I find the resemblance to the ending section of 1984 very interesting. Whether a coincidence or delicate act of reference, the plot of interrogation and torture reveals the essential conflict of being a sympathizer of only one regime and the double (duality) identity of the protagonist who is himself mixed-raced, has lived in Northern and Southern Vietnam, and can not identify between American and Vietnamese. The interrogation is a great way to purposefully showcase the identity crisis of the character and his internal and external conflicts.
Also, another very interesting thing is the use of "we" in the last chapter. When the author realizes his "two sides", namely the "me" and "myself", he starts using the pronoun we instead of I in the narration, which sounds very psychotic. As weird as it sounds, it is a sign that the protagonist has finally embraced his complex and conflicted identity as a son, a revolutionary, and countryman of the country that has torn apart from war.

flag

Patrick Moore No spoiler in my answer.

All these answers are true and correct. In addition to the very thoughtful answers already given I add another perspective.

The question is "Why the Author Had To" give us the very uncomfortable ending he gave us. I wondered this myself. I was uncomfortable and wished he could have written it in a way that did not make me so uncomfortable.

All the answers given so far tell why the STORY "had to" tell us this, so the story would make as much sense as possible given the time and place and the philosophy in place there and then.

But none of the answers so far attempt the question of why the AUTHOR "had to" tell us these things. I'd like to attempt that question.

I see the author as wanting to provide a service to humanity through his writing, including informing us about the world as it currently is. I would guess the reasons for the Author writing this book at this time, yes, include giving a history lesson about things that happened in the 1970s, and (I am guessing) also to enlighten people about our current world situations. If my guess has any accuracy, then he'd "have to" make us feel discomfort in a way we felt. Personal discomfort. We have grown throughout the novel to identify with the main character to some degree and when he is made uncomfortable, when he is made to examine himself, we also must examine ourselves. It does not feel good to do this. I think the author "had to" make us feel icky in order to help us "see" the degree of similar issues going on today. I could be wrong, just a guess.

He could have left it more like a Vonnegut novel, with the ironic humor. That would have been one kind of novel that would have worked. But in Vonnegut's novels we do not feel personally affronted, perhaps motivated to act and see the world differently. After a Vonnegut novel you just shake your head and chuckle darkly. I love Vonnegut! I would have ENJOYED the Sympathizer more, had it kept the lovely humor and left out the discomfort. But I see the value I think the author intended by including the discomfort.

flag

Nicole The struggle I had with the end of the book was how strikingly similar it was to the end of George Orwell's 1984 in that the new regime believed that everyone must be broken down and reborn, including admitting to things they don't want to admit, before they can be released. Perhaps this is accurate, but it made it very predictable.

flag