The Time Traveler's Wife
discussion
WARNING: spoilers within! help with ending? maybe i am not that smart
date
newest »
newest »
From what I interpreted, it seemed that there were actually two Henrys when he is shot. One Henry is referenced earlier in the story (he's the one that sees a frightened pre-teen Clare and notices Clare's dad and brother staring at some bloody thing that isn't revealed). Then, at the end, Henry again time travels to the same moment (meaning there are now two Henrys in that period of time), only to be shot, and flung back into the present, with the Henry of before bearing witness to the violence. I don't think he ever gets control of his time traveling, since it's inferred that it's an evolutionary thing (Alba can do it, but he can't). Really lovely book. Actually had me crying at the end.
the reason he is shot is because he no longer has his feet - his "wings" to flee dangerous situations. He is therefore unable to escape the situation.
@Jill:I don't think it's the case that he was shot because of his lost feet. It was my understanding that Claire's father and brother (I think) were hunting. They fired at a deer and at that instant, Henry appeared midair and was hit.
I never really understood why he would appear like that, since midair appearances were never mentioned previously, but...
I thought he got shot because he didn't have his feet. I figured he knew this because of the earlier events and had somewhat figured out how to travel to certain times (so he could warn Claire). I assumed Henry would be laying down and looked like a deer?
First of all, I don't think he appeared in mid air, i think he appeared on the ground and that movement was interpreted by Claire's brother and father as a possible deer, so they shot at the movement. He didn't really get shot because of his feet, but rather because he couldn't run away when he saw what was happenening, and therefore got shot.He says earlier in the book that his feet are the most valuable part of him, for time travelling...because if anything happened to them, then he wouldn't be able to escape potential danger.
Ok the only reason why Henry was disappearing a lot at the end is because of the pain medication he was taking, it states it in the movie. When he is talking to Alba. Henry was 43 when he died. Has any one noticed at the end of the movie when Henry is about to get shot in the woods- if you turn on the subtitles- apparently Alba says "daddy,daddy" check it out. Of course the words or noise you hear does not sound like that.
I read this book over 2 years ago so my memory may be off but I thought that there where 2 Henrys... a younger one and an older one... when the younger Henry gets shot I thought her father and brother saw him appearing obviously not knowing who he was, they were protecting the family... then thinking that at the same time older Henry is with his wife for umm new years? is feeling what younger Henry is experiencing kind of at the same moment but different time..... that make sense?
Henry couldn't control his time traveling so he couldn't warn Clare about it. Only Alba was able to control it because Dr. Kendrick said Alba was like a prodigy. I wanna say that their were two Henry's, like Deidra has said. The older Henry (the one with no feet) arrived at the scene first and got shot because Mark and his dad thought it was either a deer or a duck. And once Henry yelled Clare name when he got shot, he went back to his time since he didn't stay long. And when Clare went outside, the younger Henry was there standing with her brother and father staring at something on the ground, which could be a puddle of blood, (like the movie) or a dead animal body.
Isn't there a reference somewhere where Henry says "if I ever lose my ability to run, just shoot me"?
That's one of the things I really didn't like about the book, it's an incredibly rare and incredibly stupid hunter who would shoot at something he couldn't see clearly. Such a dumb way to have Henry die, especially after presenting the father and brother as being fairly reasonable and competent people. A hunter doesn't just wildly shoot at "movement" or a "flash of white" or a "rustling in the bushes". A normal deer hunter focuses, controls his or her breathing and takes aim at a particular part of the deer's body - usually aiming for the lung. The deer has to be standing at an angle that makes this possible or else the hunter usually doesn't take the shot. The author doesn't seem to know the first thing about hunting, was she too lazy to bother watching a single hunting show or flipping through a hunting magazine?
That and all the hipster/intellectual name dropping bothered me, the insecurity of having to prove everyone is so cool... other than that I liked the book.
That and all the hipster/intellectual name dropping bothered me, the insecurity of having to prove everyone is so cool... other than that I liked the book.
I interpreted it to be Henry at the age when he died who was shot. He was shot because he couldn't move and escape or hide. Clair's father and brother went to him and were leaning over/watching him and he was able to travel back and die in "present" Clair's arms. I don't always worry about some details like what a "serious hunter" would do as this was a tool to move the story line along. We don't know the entire story but to know that it was a traumatic event for them.
He was several ages when he and Clair have encounters. They are not chronological as each encounter lists Henry's and Clair's age.
And we know that Henry visits one more time when Clair is aged and frail and he is young and vital.
It is one of the challenges of the book to follow the story and keep track of the ages of the characters. Fortunately it does follow Clair's life track rather than Henry's.
"I don't always worry about some details like what a "serious hunter" would do as this was a tool to move the story line along. We don't know the entire story but to know that it was a traumatic event for them. "
I wasn't talking about "serious hunters" I was talking about any hunter competent enough to actually get a license. I find the ignorant and mean-spirited depiction of hunters to be just as offensive as the other stereotypes that people brought up in this book, such as the racial stereotypes. I DID enjoy the book, but it's just one of those things that I find highly annoying, mainly because, reading between the lines, it's pretty likely that that is how the author WANTED to depict conservatives and hunters. That's why I see it as mean-spirited rather than just an innocent mistake.
I wasn't talking about "serious hunters" I was talking about any hunter competent enough to actually get a license. I find the ignorant and mean-spirited depiction of hunters to be just as offensive as the other stereotypes that people brought up in this book, such as the racial stereotypes. I DID enjoy the book, but it's just one of those things that I find highly annoying, mainly because, reading between the lines, it's pretty likely that that is how the author WANTED to depict conservatives and hunters. That's why I see it as mean-spirited rather than just an innocent mistake.
Katya wrote: "That's one of the things I really didn't like about the book, it's an incredibly rare and incredibly stupid hunter who would shoot at something he couldn't see clearly. Such a dumb way to have Hen..."It's been years since I read the book, but I thought they'd taken aim at a deer and fired, and whats-his-name suddenly appeared in between them, intercepting the bullet.
That may have been what happened. I read it when it first came out.
That reading is certainly possible, and would make me a lot happier!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
other than this confusion? i adored this.