In the Woods
question
Adam Ryan lies - My theory: What happened to Jamie and Peter?
Carolina
(last edited
Jul 29, 2017 07:49PM
)
Jul 29, 2017 07:16PM
SPOILERS - THIS IS MY TAKE ON THE ENDING:
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, especially the unfinished mystery of what happened with Jamie and Peter.
It seems like there are two main theories going around:
1) Adam Ryan killed his friends.
2) A supernatural being - probably the púka/pooka - killed them.
I think the "Adam killed his friends" is the right one, and that it is actually sustained by the supernatural beliefs of the second theory.
One of the recurring themes of the book is the fact that children are in a desperate search for magic. They know it probably doesn't exist but they hope so deeply that magic is real that they would even risk their safety to find it. Katy knows her sister can't be trusted but when she's promised a magical object, she forgets what she already knows about her sister's personality and meets this stranger in the middle of the night. It's her innocence that ends her life. In a similar fashion, when Cassie was a child, she followed a stranger into a shed, hoping the marbles he was going to show her were somehow magical.
I think we, the readers, are the children here. We want to believe that some supernatural being killed Jamie and Peter - or even better, that he took them to a magical kingdom because they were worthy. Adam Ryan wants to believe it for sure - as he feels that the monster rejected him and took his friends instead.
The novel mentions weird sounds in the wood (like birds) and at the end, Ryan sees an odd figure with antlers (although I don't know if it's in the woods or engraved in the object that looks like an arrowhead or a pendant.) I believe Ryan wants to see this because that's the romantic explanation and it hides the ugly truth his memory loss is hiding: That he killed his friends when he was just a boy.
ADAM KILLED HIS FRIENDS. Possible clues:
- Ryan says once that in the 80s nobody believed children could kill but now people know better. I don't remember the context - I think he was thinking about another case - but the idea is there: A child can kill.
- The detective that investigated Jamie and Peter's case believed Adam was the killer. (At least, this is suggested when Cassie doesn't want to talk to Ryan about the old detective's theories - I wish we could have been present in that conversation!)
- THERE WAS NOBODY WHO KNEW THE FOREST AS WELL AS ADAM, PETER AND JAMIE. Why is this line repeated in the story so many times? Is Tana French trying to tell us that Adam could find the best spot to hide the bodies and nobody would ever find them?
- ADAM LIES? One of the parts I was curious about was when Ryan visits his parents. Adam remembers that Peter was the kind one (the first one that was friendly to the bullied kid for the first time). Adam's mother, however, thinks it was Adam who showed this kindness. MAYBE - (which means this is just my theory) - Adam used to tell his mother stories of Peter but putting himself in the spot of the hero just because he was envious of Peter's charisma.
- How was his relationship with Jamie and Peter? He remembers it as something idyllic, but there's something Jamie and Peter had in common: They thought their parents didn't love them. Something like that, at an early age, could create strong bonds. Did Adam feel left out?
Extract from the book:
I climbed down into the room. "Go away!" Jamie shouted AT ME. "Leave me alone."
Peter was still on top of the wall. "Are you going to boarding school?" he demanded.
"She never said..." (That's Jamie's answer)
Notice how she was "rude" to Adam but answered when Peter asked her?
- Did Adam have a crush on Jamie? The kiss on the cheek seems to imply so but Jamie didn't seem to share those feelings. (There's a moment when Adam puts his arms around her and she shakes it off. Same scene than the previous extract - I know it could just mean she's upset but, still, it's interesting)
Also, the scene where Adam runs behind her two friends could simbolize how he feels left out - or maybe it just means he wants to follow them to wherever they're now but he can never reach them.
MY THEORY: Peter, Jamie and Adam decide to run away but Adam is having doubts because he doesn't want to worry his parents. Then, maybe Peter says that he doesn't need to go with them, that Peter and Jamie don't need him. Adam feels betrayed and he sees that Jamie likes Peter better than him so they fight and - not really intending to do it - he kills them. They probably were without shoes because they were by the river and Adam puts his bloody shoes on again to walk around the woods and look for a place to hide their bodies.
(As I write this, I feel dirty like - HE'S A BOY! HOW IS HE GOING TO HIDE TWO BODIES? But still, one of themes of the books is the end of innocence and how children are capable of horrible things. Rosalind, for example, is only 17).
- I also find interesting how similar Jamie and Cassie are. They're both cute tomboys, strong and stuborn. It's interesting how Ryan seems to feel attracted by the "girlie girls" like Rosalind and Heather (Or even Cassie when he thought she was a damsel in distress) but he develops strong friendships with females with a strong personality. My take here is that Cassie reminds him of Jamie - and he wants to be first in their lives but the moment he has sex with her, he stops caring about Cassie... Could this be related to his feelings for Jamie? Is Ryan, as an adult, still trying to be Peter so when Cassie "falls for his charms", he feels like Jamie is choosing Peter all over again? (I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SPECULATION HERE - But that's fun!)
- Lastly, the behavior of Adam's parents seems interesting. If I remember correctly, there was one time where Adam mentions that his mother was afraid the killer would go back for him... if that was true, then she would have never wanted him out of her sight and, still, she sends him to a boarding school. (Weird decision). MY TAKE: His parents think he killed his friends, or at least they have their doubts - But they feel bad just thinking about it and that's why when Adam visited them, they kept saying that "He was a good boy."
MAN, THIS IS A LONG POST. Thoughts?
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, especially the unfinished mystery of what happened with Jamie and Peter.
It seems like there are two main theories going around:
1) Adam Ryan killed his friends.
2) A supernatural being - probably the púka/pooka - killed them.
I think the "Adam killed his friends" is the right one, and that it is actually sustained by the supernatural beliefs of the second theory.
One of the recurring themes of the book is the fact that children are in a desperate search for magic. They know it probably doesn't exist but they hope so deeply that magic is real that they would even risk their safety to find it. Katy knows her sister can't be trusted but when she's promised a magical object, she forgets what she already knows about her sister's personality and meets this stranger in the middle of the night. It's her innocence that ends her life. In a similar fashion, when Cassie was a child, she followed a stranger into a shed, hoping the marbles he was going to show her were somehow magical.
I think we, the readers, are the children here. We want to believe that some supernatural being killed Jamie and Peter - or even better, that he took them to a magical kingdom because they were worthy. Adam Ryan wants to believe it for sure - as he feels that the monster rejected him and took his friends instead.
The novel mentions weird sounds in the wood (like birds) and at the end, Ryan sees an odd figure with antlers (although I don't know if it's in the woods or engraved in the object that looks like an arrowhead or a pendant.) I believe Ryan wants to see this because that's the romantic explanation and it hides the ugly truth his memory loss is hiding: That he killed his friends when he was just a boy.
ADAM KILLED HIS FRIENDS. Possible clues:
- Ryan says once that in the 80s nobody believed children could kill but now people know better. I don't remember the context - I think he was thinking about another case - but the idea is there: A child can kill.
- The detective that investigated Jamie and Peter's case believed Adam was the killer. (At least, this is suggested when Cassie doesn't want to talk to Ryan about the old detective's theories - I wish we could have been present in that conversation!)
- THERE WAS NOBODY WHO KNEW THE FOREST AS WELL AS ADAM, PETER AND JAMIE. Why is this line repeated in the story so many times? Is Tana French trying to tell us that Adam could find the best spot to hide the bodies and nobody would ever find them?
- ADAM LIES? One of the parts I was curious about was when Ryan visits his parents. Adam remembers that Peter was the kind one (the first one that was friendly to the bullied kid for the first time). Adam's mother, however, thinks it was Adam who showed this kindness. MAYBE - (which means this is just my theory) - Adam used to tell his mother stories of Peter but putting himself in the spot of the hero just because he was envious of Peter's charisma.
- How was his relationship with Jamie and Peter? He remembers it as something idyllic, but there's something Jamie and Peter had in common: They thought their parents didn't love them. Something like that, at an early age, could create strong bonds. Did Adam feel left out?
Extract from the book:
I climbed down into the room. "Go away!" Jamie shouted AT ME. "Leave me alone."
Peter was still on top of the wall. "Are you going to boarding school?" he demanded.
"She never said..." (That's Jamie's answer)
Notice how she was "rude" to Adam but answered when Peter asked her?
- Did Adam have a crush on Jamie? The kiss on the cheek seems to imply so but Jamie didn't seem to share those feelings. (There's a moment when Adam puts his arms around her and she shakes it off. Same scene than the previous extract - I know it could just mean she's upset but, still, it's interesting)
Also, the scene where Adam runs behind her two friends could simbolize how he feels left out - or maybe it just means he wants to follow them to wherever they're now but he can never reach them.
MY THEORY: Peter, Jamie and Adam decide to run away but Adam is having doubts because he doesn't want to worry his parents. Then, maybe Peter says that he doesn't need to go with them, that Peter and Jamie don't need him. Adam feels betrayed and he sees that Jamie likes Peter better than him so they fight and - not really intending to do it - he kills them. They probably were without shoes because they were by the river and Adam puts his bloody shoes on again to walk around the woods and look for a place to hide their bodies.
(As I write this, I feel dirty like - HE'S A BOY! HOW IS HE GOING TO HIDE TWO BODIES? But still, one of themes of the books is the end of innocence and how children are capable of horrible things. Rosalind, for example, is only 17).
- I also find interesting how similar Jamie and Cassie are. They're both cute tomboys, strong and stuborn. It's interesting how Ryan seems to feel attracted by the "girlie girls" like Rosalind and Heather (Or even Cassie when he thought she was a damsel in distress) but he develops strong friendships with females with a strong personality. My take here is that Cassie reminds him of Jamie - and he wants to be first in their lives but the moment he has sex with her, he stops caring about Cassie... Could this be related to his feelings for Jamie? Is Ryan, as an adult, still trying to be Peter so when Cassie "falls for his charms", he feels like Jamie is choosing Peter all over again? (I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SPECULATION HERE - But that's fun!)
- Lastly, the behavior of Adam's parents seems interesting. If I remember correctly, there was one time where Adam mentions that his mother was afraid the killer would go back for him... if that was true, then she would have never wanted him out of her sight and, still, she sends him to a boarding school. (Weird decision). MY TAKE: His parents think he killed his friends, or at least they have their doubts - But they feel bad just thinking about it and that's why when Adam visited them, they kept saying that "He was a good boy."
MAN, THIS IS A LONG POST. Thoughts?
reply
flag
Here is my thought upon waking up after reading it. When the kids jumped off - peter and jamie landed on a buck's antlers. When Rob landed and focused on his shoes - the antlers missed him but slashes his back. The blood poured into his shoes because they were above him. The theme of rain is also triggering for him and I think it's because their blood rained down. There was a mention of 3 baby deer running alongside them at some point. As a child, he would have thought the buck was a monster. The lack of bodies would make sense if, like he said, they were both still very lightweight. The buck would have migrated. Or run away with them - and leaving him behind. The shock would have been intense when he looked up. Enough to cause a kid to dissociate & be catatonic. At the end, the answer is facing him directly, when he is given that relic, and it's too much so instead of allowing himself to remember he gives it away. Rob is someone who doesn't want to face the truth/can't (which Tana French has written about and is evidenced by his behaviour). The theme along the way that French included about kids wanting to belive in "magic" and the theme of "magical items" would then make sense because Rob as a child explained away that the buck was a monster and the relic is a chance for him to see things as an adult but he can't.
View all 3 comments
Wow, a lot of theories, and I still don’t know what happened. Quite frankly, I was very angry that French left us with such an unresolved ending, and NEVER tries to entice us with an explanation in a sequel. All I know is that Ryan ended up being the most dysfunctional child, then became even more emotionally hindered by not remembering. I truly believe he didn’t remember, but I could never understand why he didn’t try hypnotism to give him some closure, even if it was something he didn’t want to remember. I, too, don’t believe he killed them, because after serving 12 years in law enforcement, it’d be near impossible for a 12 year old to hide all that blood as well as two bodies. I remember them describing how much blood “saturated” both his tennis shoes. Yes, the author lent the reader the impression that something supernatural happened to his friends, but what else was she going to do? Also, the fact that the police didn’t find ANY trace evidence anywhere I just find practically impossible! Those cops/detectives were spending a large amount of time out in those woods, because they were just as traumatized as much as the village was too. I always thought it was a convenient decision on Tana French’s part NOT to explain what really happened to Ryans’s friends, because she couldn’t come up with an explanation. I never read another book of hers because I didn’t want to go thru the same trauma of not knowing. So if anyone reads one of her books where she decides to write about what happened, PLEASE let me know, it’ll be interesting to see if she can come up with a plausible explanation!
I just finished the novel and have been combing reviews to look for some fan theories. I really love your analysis, and there's only one piece that I think could potentially be a little different (not sure which scenario I want to believe!).
I can't help but imagine a scenario in which Peter and Jamie really do run away. Like you said, P&J want to run away but Adam is having doubts. They don't want to be caught and dragged back home so they concoct a plan to leave torn clothing/blood before disappearing. It could be planned that Rob was always the one left behind to cover for the other two, but I think more likely that Peter and Jamie concoct a secret plan to disappear because they don't trust Adam. Maybe they actually use Adam as a pawn in their plan and that's why he's locked his memories away.
What if ADAM is the bullied/unwanted kid? We know he's the fat kid (bit cliche but think about it). In his memories, Adam believes he was friends with Peter and Jamie. He thinks they were all best friends and had an idyllic connection. He even idolized Peter, re-imagining him as this amazing, nice person. That's part of why he becomes Rob--not because he can't live his life as Adam--because he wants to be a completely different person. Someone who actually belongs (doesn't he mention how he tries to dress the exact part of detective, to fit in perfectly?).
When reality hits him--that his two best friends didn't want him, that they left him behind, (or even worse, framed him for an attack/murder and disappeared) he can't handle it. He blocks the truth--the only thing that makes sense to him is that they were his very best friends and something took them away from him, not that they willingly left him behind.
That could be what the old detective tells Cassie--that if there were bodies, they'd have found the bodies by now. Maybe the original detective thinks the kids disappeared (and something could certainly have happened to them post-disappearance). He tells Cassie that basically Adam was a fragile kid sent off to boarding school because he couldn't keep himself together (and perhaps his parents were afraid he too would run away at some point when he realized his friends were never coming back). Cassie realizes she can't tell this to Adam because his sanity is hinging on the fact that he can't remember what happened to his friends---that they didn't want him. That maybe they never wanted him. Maybe they weren't even his friends.
I can't help but imagine a scenario in which Peter and Jamie really do run away. Like you said, P&J want to run away but Adam is having doubts. They don't want to be caught and dragged back home so they concoct a plan to leave torn clothing/blood before disappearing. It could be planned that Rob was always the one left behind to cover for the other two, but I think more likely that Peter and Jamie concoct a secret plan to disappear because they don't trust Adam. Maybe they actually use Adam as a pawn in their plan and that's why he's locked his memories away.
What if ADAM is the bullied/unwanted kid? We know he's the fat kid (bit cliche but think about it). In his memories, Adam believes he was friends with Peter and Jamie. He thinks they were all best friends and had an idyllic connection. He even idolized Peter, re-imagining him as this amazing, nice person. That's part of why he becomes Rob--not because he can't live his life as Adam--because he wants to be a completely different person. Someone who actually belongs (doesn't he mention how he tries to dress the exact part of detective, to fit in perfectly?).
When reality hits him--that his two best friends didn't want him, that they left him behind, (or even worse, framed him for an attack/murder and disappeared) he can't handle it. He blocks the truth--the only thing that makes sense to him is that they were his very best friends and something took them away from him, not that they willingly left him behind.
That could be what the old detective tells Cassie--that if there were bodies, they'd have found the bodies by now. Maybe the original detective thinks the kids disappeared (and something could certainly have happened to them post-disappearance). He tells Cassie that basically Adam was a fragile kid sent off to boarding school because he couldn't keep himself together (and perhaps his parents were afraid he too would run away at some point when he realized his friends were never coming back). Cassie realizes she can't tell this to Adam because his sanity is hinging on the fact that he can't remember what happened to his friends---that they didn't want him. That maybe they never wanted him. Maybe they weren't even his friends.
[Kudos to Ashley for the beginnings of this theory!]
I too feel like Adam killed Jaime and Peter, at least in a way. Look at the parallels with the modern case: Rob buys into Rosalind's deception hook, line, and sinker, just like Damien. Rob is not the psychopath, but he's extremely susceptible to one who is. Rob was large as a child, hmm, like Willy Little, the boy who is overly concerned with what his mummy thinks. The book also goes into great detail about the problems murderers have dealing with their crimes, at least sensitive ones who were manipulated into it. And Rob is clearly disturbed to the point of madness by the events, and cannot bear to remember them.
I haven't poked at this theory a lot, but my thought is the narrator, "Rob", is actually Willy Little. The psychopath who led him to kill is indeed Adam Ryan, but not the narrator of the book. That is poor Willy. Who stopped Willy's bullying? Adam. As part of his psychopath's plan for Willy, he needs to save him, to befriend him.
The real Adam Ryan well and truly disappeared, after convincing everyone he had a horrible memory loss, sold with a psychopath's skill. Meanwhile, with an unfortunate name and the horrors of boarding school, Willy Little changes his name, and who better than a similar name to his psychopath friend/tormentor.
O'Kelly promises to check fingerprints, but we never hear the results. Instead of them losing their jobs, as is repeatedly stated, Cassie is merely docked a week of vacation, and Rob assigned to tip desk. Sounds like they didn't match or were at least inconclusive. And no one, and I mean absolutely no one, ever recognizes "Rob" as Adam. Sure he's older and thinner now and has an accent, but there would be traces (my how you look like your mother) and his voice would be recognizable, especially over the phone. And with a last name of Ryan? But no, nothing. Adam would be remembered, but not poor Willy. Sure, Rob was afraid of being remembered, but not as Adam, but as Willy.
And where are Peter and Jaime? Still in the top room of the castle, their hiding place so secret that only they knew. Hidden from the ground, the staircase crumbled away, now with two skeletons silently keeping watch.
I too feel like Adam killed Jaime and Peter, at least in a way. Look at the parallels with the modern case: Rob buys into Rosalind's deception hook, line, and sinker, just like Damien. Rob is not the psychopath, but he's extremely susceptible to one who is. Rob was large as a child, hmm, like Willy Little, the boy who is overly concerned with what his mummy thinks. The book also goes into great detail about the problems murderers have dealing with their crimes, at least sensitive ones who were manipulated into it. And Rob is clearly disturbed to the point of madness by the events, and cannot bear to remember them.
I haven't poked at this theory a lot, but my thought is the narrator, "Rob", is actually Willy Little. The psychopath who led him to kill is indeed Adam Ryan, but not the narrator of the book. That is poor Willy. Who stopped Willy's bullying? Adam. As part of his psychopath's plan for Willy, he needs to save him, to befriend him.
The real Adam Ryan well and truly disappeared, after convincing everyone he had a horrible memory loss, sold with a psychopath's skill. Meanwhile, with an unfortunate name and the horrors of boarding school, Willy Little changes his name, and who better than a similar name to his psychopath friend/tormentor.
O'Kelly promises to check fingerprints, but we never hear the results. Instead of them losing their jobs, as is repeatedly stated, Cassie is merely docked a week of vacation, and Rob assigned to tip desk. Sounds like they didn't match or were at least inconclusive. And no one, and I mean absolutely no one, ever recognizes "Rob" as Adam. Sure he's older and thinner now and has an accent, but there would be traces (my how you look like your mother) and his voice would be recognizable, especially over the phone. And with a last name of Ryan? But no, nothing. Adam would be remembered, but not poor Willy. Sure, Rob was afraid of being remembered, but not as Adam, but as Willy.
And where are Peter and Jaime? Still in the top room of the castle, their hiding place so secret that only they knew. Hidden from the ground, the staircase crumbled away, now with two skeletons silently keeping watch.
I just finished it a few minutes ago and, while I suppose it's possible that Rob killed his friends, I don't really buy it. I know that young kids can kill but I have a very hard time believing that a 12 year old boy could kill two people and dispose of the bodies so well and so fast that no one would ever find them.
As for the argument that he warns readers at the start, and then reminds them of that at the end, that he lies...well, that IS part of being a detective. Undercover cops do it really well too. And, more generally, we as humans do it all the time, sometimes most especially to ourselves. Here's what he says in the last chapter:
"But before you decide to despise me too thoroughly, consider this: she fooled you, too. You had as good a chance as I did. I told you everything I saw, as I saw it at the time. And if that in itself was deceptive, remember, I told you that, too: I warned you, right from the beginning, that I lie."
The emphasis is mine. Rob is telling us that that he described everything as he saw it at the time. Not with the wisdom of hindsight but as it was happening. He saw Rosalind as he wanted to see her, as he wanted her to be because he saw himself in her tragedy. Likewise, he wanted/needed the bad guy to be the obvious, in your face option (the dad or Mark)- not the one you'd never ever suspect or ever see coming, i.e. the danger you don't even know is there. He was, in effect, deceiving himself by not allowing himself to see the reality of what was actually going on, despite all evidence to the contrary. Because, despite Rob saying that Rosalind fooled the readers too, she didn't fool me. She raised red flags with me, not upon meeting her but soon thereafter. And after she lost her cool and snapped at Jessica, calling her a stupid girl, I KNEW she wasn't what she seemed and that she was involved in her sister's death. But that very obvious slip of the mask went right by Rob not because he didn't notice it but because he chose not to ascribe any meaning to it because it would conflict with his created "truth" about her. He was lying to himself and,indirectly, to the reader.
Besides, Ron comes off looking more and more like an idiot especially in those last chapters. I came away thinking that maybe he should give up the police work because his detective instincts, in this case at least, were crap. And a true psychopath could never stomach coming off looking like a fool. They'll play the vulnerable victim - because that illlicits sympathy. They'll play the humble hero - because that illicits praise. And both will illicit admiration, towards the victim for surviving and towards the hero for being noble and good. It feeds their narcissism. No one admires an idiot.
Also, the author had this to say about Rob in an interview: "Rob is the kind of person who, whenever he comes close to taking some irrevocable leap, runs as fast as he can in the other direction. He’s so badly damaged that he can’t risk taking that leap, in case it smashes him into a million pieces. So when I started thinking about the end of In the Woods, I had three choices: turn my narrator into a totally different person in the last chapter, in order to force in a solution (cheap, artificial and cheesy); do a deus ex machina and have someone else pop up with the solution (cheap, artificial and cheesy); or stay true to the character and just write the best book I could, even if it didn’t exactly fit the genre conventions."
That doesn't sound like a psychopath at all. Psychopaths don't have a conscience, hence there would be no running away from anything, no need to shield himself from bad memories via selective amnesia, no danger of being "smashed into a million pieces" by any experience.
As for the argument that he warns readers at the start, and then reminds them of that at the end, that he lies...well, that IS part of being a detective. Undercover cops do it really well too. And, more generally, we as humans do it all the time, sometimes most especially to ourselves. Here's what he says in the last chapter:
"But before you decide to despise me too thoroughly, consider this: she fooled you, too. You had as good a chance as I did. I told you everything I saw, as I saw it at the time. And if that in itself was deceptive, remember, I told you that, too: I warned you, right from the beginning, that I lie."
The emphasis is mine. Rob is telling us that that he described everything as he saw it at the time. Not with the wisdom of hindsight but as it was happening. He saw Rosalind as he wanted to see her, as he wanted her to be because he saw himself in her tragedy. Likewise, he wanted/needed the bad guy to be the obvious, in your face option (the dad or Mark)- not the one you'd never ever suspect or ever see coming, i.e. the danger you don't even know is there. He was, in effect, deceiving himself by not allowing himself to see the reality of what was actually going on, despite all evidence to the contrary. Because, despite Rob saying that Rosalind fooled the readers too, she didn't fool me. She raised red flags with me, not upon meeting her but soon thereafter. And after she lost her cool and snapped at Jessica, calling her a stupid girl, I KNEW she wasn't what she seemed and that she was involved in her sister's death. But that very obvious slip of the mask went right by Rob not because he didn't notice it but because he chose not to ascribe any meaning to it because it would conflict with his created "truth" about her. He was lying to himself and,indirectly, to the reader.
Besides, Ron comes off looking more and more like an idiot especially in those last chapters. I came away thinking that maybe he should give up the police work because his detective instincts, in this case at least, were crap. And a true psychopath could never stomach coming off looking like a fool. They'll play the vulnerable victim - because that illlicits sympathy. They'll play the humble hero - because that illicits praise. And both will illicit admiration, towards the victim for surviving and towards the hero for being noble and good. It feeds their narcissism. No one admires an idiot.
Also, the author had this to say about Rob in an interview: "Rob is the kind of person who, whenever he comes close to taking some irrevocable leap, runs as fast as he can in the other direction. He’s so badly damaged that he can’t risk taking that leap, in case it smashes him into a million pieces. So when I started thinking about the end of In the Woods, I had three choices: turn my narrator into a totally different person in the last chapter, in order to force in a solution (cheap, artificial and cheesy); do a deus ex machina and have someone else pop up with the solution (cheap, artificial and cheesy); or stay true to the character and just write the best book I could, even if it didn’t exactly fit the genre conventions."
That doesn't sound like a psychopath at all. Psychopaths don't have a conscience, hence there would be no running away from anything, no need to shield himself from bad memories via selective amnesia, no danger of being "smashed into a million pieces" by any experience.
The idea that a 12 year old could have successfully hidden two bodies in a relatively short period of time is as unlikely as the pooka. The pooka mentions come from four different sources, not once from Adam, and most with other witnesses in the room. So we aren't simply relying on his recounting of the conversation. Unless he is also lying to the reader about who was present in the room and what was said. He has warned us he may do that. But then it makes if very hard to believe anything we read.
We know that Cassie appears smart, has read the case file about Adam and has experienced psychopaths before. I think if Adam was either a child killer or a psychopath she might have raised a flag.
I think if Adam is the killer it's not actually credible with the facts given. Although there are some really weird notes, what parent would send their child away after an event like that! Also Rosalind's father said he would send his daughter away to protect her, keeping Rosalind at home as long as is possible. Does Adam have a brother that he has also forgotten about?
Also the things the digger finds at the end, with symbol of a man with horns on it? That sounds like a pooka to me.
We know that Cassie appears smart, has read the case file about Adam and has experienced psychopaths before. I think if Adam was either a child killer or a psychopath she might have raised a flag.
I think if Adam is the killer it's not actually credible with the facts given. Although there are some really weird notes, what parent would send their child away after an event like that! Also Rosalind's father said he would send his daughter away to protect her, keeping Rosalind at home as long as is possible. Does Adam have a brother that he has also forgotten about?
Also the things the digger finds at the end, with symbol of a man with horns on it? That sounds like a pooka to me.
Here are my thoughts on what happened to Peter and Jamie
****Spoilers****
I agree with Paul Close above. Peter and Jamie are still in the tower. That is why the bodies were never found. It is chilling to think the tower will remain on the traffic island after the motorway is built, with them still inside.
After Rob kissed Jamie he wonders what she will do “punch me, kiss me back”. Peter jumps down to join them. I believe Rob’s description of what follows — the playful wrestling and plan to run away — is a false memory. In reality, I think he and Peter fight and Peter hits his head on the stone floor.
Rob then attacks Jamie who scratches him down his back causing the tears on his shirt.
Rob’s last memory is of Jamie rejoicing that she is not going away to school. In the tower, she dances and says, “I’m gonna stay here forever! Forever and ever and ever!” I think by remembering this, Rob’s subconscious is telling him what really happened. Poor Jamie really did stay there (in the tower) forever.
****Spoilers****
I agree with Paul Close above. Peter and Jamie are still in the tower. That is why the bodies were never found. It is chilling to think the tower will remain on the traffic island after the motorway is built, with them still inside.
After Rob kissed Jamie he wonders what she will do “punch me, kiss me back”. Peter jumps down to join them. I believe Rob’s description of what follows — the playful wrestling and plan to run away — is a false memory. In reality, I think he and Peter fight and Peter hits his head on the stone floor.
Rob then attacks Jamie who scratches him down his back causing the tears on his shirt.
Rob’s last memory is of Jamie rejoicing that she is not going away to school. In the tower, she dances and says, “I’m gonna stay here forever! Forever and ever and ever!” I think by remembering this, Rob’s subconscious is telling him what really happened. Poor Jamie really did stay there (in the tower) forever.
I think this is really interesting. And I also appreciate how it captures the NEED to think and sit with this book afterward. That's how I felt too.
I just felt frustrated by the way that part of the story wasn't resolved. This makes me feel better.
I just felt frustrated by the way that part of the story wasn't resolved. This makes me feel better.
I also felt betrayed with the open ending. But as Katy's murder was resolved I kind of suspected that the fate of Jaime and Peter will remain a mystery. French places hints everywhere in the book but as the whole P&J storyline turns out to be a red herring for the "main" murder, any hint can be a red herring too. Or not, depending on how a reader picks them and puts two and two together. Besides that, as Cassie said, children see the world differently: Rob remembers a castle and a secret garden, but nobody else mentions it.
In my opinion it J&P were killed by a stranger, very randomly. In the book adults lure them somewhere to harm them. A traveling killer who lured them say in a car, but Adam backed up in the last moment and escaped. Or he was left behind. From Kiernan we know that the police looked for weeks everywhere, even in the hollow trees. Maybe this was his nightmare, when Kiernan realized that the children were taken away and his detective methods can't help. Like Rob he tried to connect the dots that weren't there.
But from the other side, the pooka legend and the old altar for sacrifices speaks for the supernatural version. It did remind me of American Gods and the missing children in the town of Lakeside.
In my opinion it J&P were killed by a stranger, very randomly. In the book adults lure them somewhere to harm them. A traveling killer who lured them say in a car, but Adam backed up in the last moment and escaped. Or he was left behind. From Kiernan we know that the police looked for weeks everywhere, even in the hollow trees. Maybe this was his nightmare, when Kiernan realized that the children were taken away and his detective methods can't help. Like Rob he tried to connect the dots that weren't there.
But from the other side, the pooka legend and the old altar for sacrifices speaks for the supernatural version. It did remind me of American Gods and the missing children in the town of Lakeside.
Mary, id encourage you to try one of her other books, they’re quite different than this one! :) (unless you totally hate her writing style generally, which is fine too)
So yeah, late to the party. But I just finished In The Woods. It's been a while since I read a mystery and frankly the way French leaves us hanging in the end is kind of a turn off. It's not that she doesn't resolve things, but really never lays down the ground work to compensate for leaving us with no answers for the murders of Adam's Childhood. Then it's us who must come up wth the ending. Hard to believe that that Adam could overtake his two mates, kill them and dispose of their bodies to never be seen again. And the current murder where Cass uses a jilted lover ploy to trick Rosalind into a confession just doesn't seem believable. Detectives would rather get their suspect in the box for some good questioning don't you think?
As far as how Rob would have gotten rid of the bodies so quickly, didn’t he say at one point that the killer (I think this was regarding Katy’s case) would have been smarter to dump her body in the river? I’m almost certain he said that, but I haven’t found it mentioned around here (possibly haven’t no looked enough). Anyway, my favorite theory is that he killed his friends and disposed of their bodies in the river. In reality I think it’s intentionally open ended and there is no correct answer, but I feel better telling myself this jerk of a protagonist is also a psychopathic murderer.
Thanks to everyone for posting their theories! I just finished reading "In The Woods" and was also very frustrated that their was no resolution to the Peter/Jamie disappearance.
Carolina wrote: "SPOILERS - THIS IS MY TAKE ON THE ENDING:
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, espec..."
Carolina wrote: "SPOILERS - THIS IS MY TAKE ON THE ENDING:
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, espec..."
Just finished the book and thought I would browse through this thread as the lack of resolution of Ryan's original case left all readers unsatisfied and these discussions provide a fun outlet. Not only do I think you are absolute right -- Adam is the killer -- but I think he is still the suspect and the case was very much still open. Remember Cassie's background in undercover and no one in the Murder Squad really knows how or why she got transferred. Maybe she didn't. Maybe she is still undercover working the unsolved case and is investigating Ryan's potential connection. This is why she is so quick to agree to take the Knocknaree case. Maybe taking Ryan back to the scene of the original crime will trigger some slip-up on his part that will pin him to that case. It also explains why she so quickly leaves the Murder Squad once the cover is blown and Ryan knows that the police know who Rob Ryan really is. It also explains why Cassie cuts off all communication with Ryan after that as well. She still maintained a relatively functional working relationship with Ryan even after he started getting weird toward her. But once Ryan knew his secret was out, the case she was working was over. Obviously this is all complete speculation and French likely had none of this mind, but all good stories can trigger all these interesting fan theories.
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, espec..."
Carolina wrote: "SPOILERS - THIS IS MY TAKE ON THE ENDING:
Hello,
I know I am late to the party because this book was published so long ago but I just finished it and now I NEED to discuss it with someone, espec..."
Just finished the book and thought I would browse through this thread as the lack of resolution of Ryan's original case left all readers unsatisfied and these discussions provide a fun outlet. Not only do I think you are absolute right -- Adam is the killer -- but I think he is still the suspect and the case was very much still open. Remember Cassie's background in undercover and no one in the Murder Squad really knows how or why she got transferred. Maybe she didn't. Maybe she is still undercover working the unsolved case and is investigating Ryan's potential connection. This is why she is so quick to agree to take the Knocknaree case. Maybe taking Ryan back to the scene of the original crime will trigger some slip-up on his part that will pin him to that case. It also explains why she so quickly leaves the Murder Squad once the cover is blown and Ryan knows that the police know who Rob Ryan really is. It also explains why Cassie cuts off all communication with Ryan after that as well. She still maintained a relatively functional working relationship with Ryan even after he started getting weird toward her. But once Ryan knew his secret was out, the case she was working was over. Obviously this is all complete speculation and French likely had none of this mind, but all good stories can trigger all these interesting fan theories.
Finally was able to read this book, immediately after i finished it I had to look somewhere for answer as to what happened to the kids in the woods.The book was a bit long for me that I even forgot what Adam Ryan, or whatever his actual name is, said at the beginning of the books, on how he lies etc. Love all the theories I've read here, I always had the feeling that his friends die an accidental death, they fell from "the castle/fortress" they were playing at or something and Adam forgot because of the trauma. Now that I think about it, after reading all the theories, is that maybe he indeed killed them. One thing that I thought after, is that his whole relationship with Cassie may not be as real as he wants us to believe, because of how he can't remember certain things when he's with his mother, he remembers or wants us to knows things from a different perspective . Because for me the whole shift in the relationship between Sam and Cassie was way to sudden, I wonder if the relationship Adam believes or describes between him and Cassie its actually a relationship between SAM and Cassie, that way the whole engagement thing seems organic to me. Adam always said how Sam was basically a third-wheeler and that it didn't matter that he was there, that Sam was a mere observer. Adam was shocked when Sam was the one comforting Cassie. Thats why I think that Adam was the third-wheeler not Sam, maybe he occupied the same role in his friendship with Jamie and Peter. One last thing that strike me as odd, was the comment Adam's roommate said when she asked him if Cassie and him slept together and that Cassie didn't deserved it or something like that and the She, the roommate, didn't either. Also the the fingerprints comment was weird to me, the boss said that if they matched they would be able to continue working, I don't know if I understand or read it the wrong way, but wouldn't the boss has said that if the prints DIDNT match then they'll be able to continue working, I don't know anymore, it was just weird.
If someone took the time to read my ramble thanks ver much. I wish Tana French would read any theory here, pick one and develop an ending for that big mystery that was just left very open and unsolved.
If someone took the time to read my ramble thanks ver much. I wish Tana French would read any theory here, pick one and develop an ending for that big mystery that was just left very open and unsolved.
****SPOILERS FOR IN THE WOOD*****
Are people still discussing this? I’m way later than any of you to this party lol. Just read this book for book club and trying to process… Honestly, I’ve read through at least 100 comments with theories on here and for every one of them it ends the same for me: ok but WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BLOOD GO? I mean, it’s the woods… not a tile floor that was bleached. So how is it even possible that Adam has the blood in his shoes but in the intense and thorough searching done there was no other blood found?
If he killed P&J up in “the castle”, still… where’s the trail of blood where he walked from there to the tree where he was found? I’m sorry but this kid was 12, it was the 80s, and in the woods. I simply cannot believe he was that expert level of a killer that he managed to scrub the woods of any additional blood… If an animal or “being” attacked and killed them, there would still be additional blood!
Also, sidebar: what the heck is this castle area?? Why does no one else ever mention it? Was it torn down? Saying the bodies are still there because no one knew to look up there makes a total of zero sense to me. Of all the detectives and searchers, assuming they had some dogs assisting as well, not one single person or dog was like hmm maybe something dis way? The way it was described, this “castle” area was not inconspicuous, so not having steps to lead up to it is simply, imo, not even remotely a good enough explanation for how not ONE of them thought they should check things out there. They searched INSIDE THE TREES for crying out loud… but they wouldn’t look around this large castle-type whatever that would be a great spot to hide some bodies behind?
Adam is a psychopath? I mean, maybe? He’s certainly a jerk and the most unlikeable “protagonist” I’ve encountered in quite some time. His behaviors often parallel those of Rosalind, who is labeled a psychopath, but with all the emphasis on how Cassie can spot one immediately I cannot imagine the relationship they had ever being possible (not even them sleeping together, but the friendship and partnership). There is no way she would have been besties with a psychopath or even been able to fake it based on how Rob makes such a big deal about how he can read her so well (after they hook up and he can tell what she’s saying isn’t true etc). And if your answer is that probably Rob lied about parts of their relationship, please evaluate why you are ok with a total free-for-all, anything goes, nearly 700pg read.
Having such an unlikeable “protagonist” made the book at times a slog for me, but it’s the unresolved P&J storyline that really makes me frustrated and want to scream/throw the book out the window; frustrated not because we didn’t get a resolution, even, but because it feels almost lazy to me that French throws out all of these various ideas around it that don’t jive and probably knew that with everything she laid out there was no way to provide an answer (because WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BLOOD GO?). If this wasn’t for book club I would have stopped reading as soon as it became known that Rob was an unreliable narrator. It’s something I hate because it always feels like an author’s free pass to just do what they want and provide no kind of answer. It makes it so that you can’t trust anything at all in the entire book.
I simply cannot figure out any scenario I’ve read that makes sense when considering other, conflicting pieces. Did someone snatch them, kill P&J elsewhere but decide to bring Adam back to the woods to be found? That’s pretty much the only thing that I could consider that would satisfactorily explain why there was no other blood there. But then, all the other bits were what? Just showing witnesses are unreliable? (The bird noise, whatever Rob supposedly heard the night he spent in the woods)
And what was with his memory of them all running away from something? I couldn’t even figure out where it was they supposedly ended up - closer to where Adam was found or farther away? Does it even matter? Does anything matter when you have an unreliable narrator?
As for Adam perhaps having had been bullied by vs bestest buds with P&J, and that led him to kill them, please see all of the above, particularly where is the rest of the blood?!?!?!
Any single theory posited makes sense to a point but then fails me. Some might say that means it was brilliantly written and purposeful, but I say lazy and/or French considered (as we read) so many different possibilities for what she might say happened to P&J, but then realized none of them would work if she kept in all of the different things she did and rather than editing down (which this book truly could have benefited from - absolutely no need to be as long as it was) just left in and called it a day with an unresolved ending as to what happened to P&J.
Are people still discussing this? I’m way later than any of you to this party lol. Just read this book for book club and trying to process… Honestly, I’ve read through at least 100 comments with theories on here and for every one of them it ends the same for me: ok but WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BLOOD GO? I mean, it’s the woods… not a tile floor that was bleached. So how is it even possible that Adam has the blood in his shoes but in the intense and thorough searching done there was no other blood found?
If he killed P&J up in “the castle”, still… where’s the trail of blood where he walked from there to the tree where he was found? I’m sorry but this kid was 12, it was the 80s, and in the woods. I simply cannot believe he was that expert level of a killer that he managed to scrub the woods of any additional blood… If an animal or “being” attacked and killed them, there would still be additional blood!
Also, sidebar: what the heck is this castle area?? Why does no one else ever mention it? Was it torn down? Saying the bodies are still there because no one knew to look up there makes a total of zero sense to me. Of all the detectives and searchers, assuming they had some dogs assisting as well, not one single person or dog was like hmm maybe something dis way? The way it was described, this “castle” area was not inconspicuous, so not having steps to lead up to it is simply, imo, not even remotely a good enough explanation for how not ONE of them thought they should check things out there. They searched INSIDE THE TREES for crying out loud… but they wouldn’t look around this large castle-type whatever that would be a great spot to hide some bodies behind?
Adam is a psychopath? I mean, maybe? He’s certainly a jerk and the most unlikeable “protagonist” I’ve encountered in quite some time. His behaviors often parallel those of Rosalind, who is labeled a psychopath, but with all the emphasis on how Cassie can spot one immediately I cannot imagine the relationship they had ever being possible (not even them sleeping together, but the friendship and partnership). There is no way she would have been besties with a psychopath or even been able to fake it based on how Rob makes such a big deal about how he can read her so well (after they hook up and he can tell what she’s saying isn’t true etc). And if your answer is that probably Rob lied about parts of their relationship, please evaluate why you are ok with a total free-for-all, anything goes, nearly 700pg read.
Having such an unlikeable “protagonist” made the book at times a slog for me, but it’s the unresolved P&J storyline that really makes me frustrated and want to scream/throw the book out the window; frustrated not because we didn’t get a resolution, even, but because it feels almost lazy to me that French throws out all of these various ideas around it that don’t jive and probably knew that with everything she laid out there was no way to provide an answer (because WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BLOOD GO?). If this wasn’t for book club I would have stopped reading as soon as it became known that Rob was an unreliable narrator. It’s something I hate because it always feels like an author’s free pass to just do what they want and provide no kind of answer. It makes it so that you can’t trust anything at all in the entire book.
I simply cannot figure out any scenario I’ve read that makes sense when considering other, conflicting pieces. Did someone snatch them, kill P&J elsewhere but decide to bring Adam back to the woods to be found? That’s pretty much the only thing that I could consider that would satisfactorily explain why there was no other blood there. But then, all the other bits were what? Just showing witnesses are unreliable? (The bird noise, whatever Rob supposedly heard the night he spent in the woods)
And what was with his memory of them all running away from something? I couldn’t even figure out where it was they supposedly ended up - closer to where Adam was found or farther away? Does it even matter? Does anything matter when you have an unreliable narrator?
As for Adam perhaps having had been bullied by vs bestest buds with P&J, and that led him to kill them, please see all of the above, particularly where is the rest of the blood?!?!?!
Any single theory posited makes sense to a point but then fails me. Some might say that means it was brilliantly written and purposeful, but I say lazy and/or French considered (as we read) so many different possibilities for what she might say happened to P&J, but then realized none of them would work if she kept in all of the different things she did and rather than editing down (which this book truly could have benefited from - absolutely no need to be as long as it was) just left in and called it a day with an unresolved ending as to what happened to P&J.
I know I'm super duper late to the party but I think sam's uncle did it. I also think that rob got psychopathic tendencies after escaping the murders. My reasoning for this is based on my guess that sam's uncle is Jamie's father and that he froze up on the phone when a dead kid and police were mentioned. I believe that the bodies are in the secret room on the tower. I also think sam is a psychopath as well and purposely manipulated the situation in the background to separate rob and Cassie. I don't really want to put in the effort to research and flush out the details but if anyone sees this post (though I doubt anyone would) please give me your thoughts.
I am currently reading In The Woods. All of the theories are interesting. I’ve read the pooka theory on a blog site as well. The unreliable narrator causes me to question if anything at all is really true, because we get no one else’s point of view.
Tana has a very interesting take children and both the darkness and I innocence of youth-or rather innocence lost. This reminds me of William Blake’s Tyger and Lamb poems. I’m halfway thru the book and what I know is that Jessica is not autistic- as a pediatrician suspicions about autism appear prior to age 7. Katy was clearly abused- the unspecified and unexplained abdominal symptoms. Rosalind is manipulating and mean to Jessica. That’s very apparent when she calls Jessica stupid when Jessica hesitated to lie for her.
This is my 4th French book. I first read The Wytch Elm via audio and it was very impressive. I read The Secret Place which again depicts the wickedness of adolescent girls. Their pacts, their belief that friendships are forever. I remember wanting that to be true but not to the point of murder. A few weeks ago I finished The Searcher which is morally ambiguous, but a very good read and based on westerns.
In The Woods was her first book. I know her reasons for the ending but I don’t know how I feel about it. I will get back to this when I finish it.
Tana has a very interesting take children and both the darkness and I innocence of youth-or rather innocence lost. This reminds me of William Blake’s Tyger and Lamb poems. I’m halfway thru the book and what I know is that Jessica is not autistic- as a pediatrician suspicions about autism appear prior to age 7. Katy was clearly abused- the unspecified and unexplained abdominal symptoms. Rosalind is manipulating and mean to Jessica. That’s very apparent when she calls Jessica stupid when Jessica hesitated to lie for her.
This is my 4th French book. I first read The Wytch Elm via audio and it was very impressive. I read The Secret Place which again depicts the wickedness of adolescent girls. Their pacts, their belief that friendships are forever. I remember wanting that to be true but not to the point of murder. A few weeks ago I finished The Searcher which is morally ambiguous, but a very good read and based on westerns.
In The Woods was her first book. I know her reasons for the ending but I don’t know how I feel about it. I will get back to this when I finish it.
Love these theories. I appreciate everyone on this thread. I’m not nearly analytical or imaginative enough to have thought of these possibilities.
What if some sort of pedophile lived in the woods, thats why they heard laughing after Sandra was raped, and maybe Peter, Jamie and Ryan saw the person, so the pedophile killed Peter and Jamie and tried to kill Ryan. (to make sure they wouldn’t tell anyone) Maybe they were by the river, so then Peter or Jamie’s blood got in Ryan’s shoes, and he put them on to run away, and the person slashed him a few times, but didn’t kill him. Maybe Ryan uses some kind of Mythical Beast to cope with the idea of someone killing his best friends. (Hence his hallucinations of a creature and such.) Even though Jonathan Devlin and his friend heard the person laughing, but didn’t know/see the person, so that is why they survived but not the kids.
I think that Irish mythology plays into this in a big way. I think that French basically wrote a supernatural novel and just isn’t being explicit about it. Consider: the title is In the Woods. The woods in question are being destroyed to make a highway. Modern Ireland disparages the myths that are at home in wild places within the country, the characters try to understand what happened to the children with modern technology and investigation, but in the book’s reality, as well as our own, there are things that cannot be explained. I think that was French’s point. The characters aren’t able to accept the unexplainable nature of the children’s disappearance and neither can we as readers. The kids were taken by the forest, maybe they were taken to live in a fae world or maybe they were eaten by the woods or some old forest god. This isn’t an acceptable explanation, and that is the point.
I totally agree with you that Adam Ryan is the killer. He starts the book out by saying he’s an unreliable narrator, so we as readers aren’t supposed to feel like we can trust him. However I think you forgot one big evidence within the last few pages of the novel to back up your opinion. A worker on the dig gives Adam Ryan an arrowhead, or pendant, that they had just found which was black with age and was noted as sharp. It was also said that when he gave the pendant back to the worker so that he could give to his grandson, a child, that Adam was left with red stains on his hands. In my mind the book wasn’t left unsolved but was left for the readers to be detectives to solve their own case. I think the red marks left on Adam’s hands were symbolizing blood stained hands, hinting he’ll never truely be able to escape that he is the true murderer of his friends. I also question whether the item found on the dig was the murder weapon because being called a pendant, another term similar to a locket, mimics Rosalind’s murder scheme intents, hinting at the similarities between them. Plus, Adam tells the worker to give the pendant to his grandson to play with, again just playing with the notion that children are capable of being killers. Sorry I just finished this book and am still flustered with it.
Wow, you may be a genius, lol. I read the book and liked it well enough but it never occurred to me that Adam could be the killer. A liar, definitely. You've painted the situation in a way that is very mind boggling. If what you say is true, Tana French is way more creative than I originally thought. Don't get me wrong, I liked the book but i was very frustrated by the open-ending. So much so that I figuratively hurled the book across the room (I read it on my phone soooo not really). Very interesting take on things! I wish I could contribute more to the discussion but it's been 6+ months since I read the book so I can't remember so much of the details. Strangely enough, I liked Rosalind, she was so wickedly evil lol
Well ladies I just got done with it and wow Carolina you hit the nail on the head. This is just how I felt to the tee. I also feel she could have cut a hundred pages out of it because repeating this so many times was just boring to me. I do think Ryan did it and really didn't have a whole hell lot of feelings about it, very weird book!!!
I just finished the book...page 409 suddenly the writer addresses the audience from Adam Ryan's perspective and states "I warned you, right from the beginning that I lie." it took me weeks to read this book so at the time I was confused but it makes much more sense reading your comments that he omitted the memories
I was so annoyed that this mystery hadn't concluded that I assumed she continued it into other books. When I found out that wasn't the case, I googled around, and your conclusion here makes it *so much more satisfying.* (A little embarrassed that I read so shallowly; I'm an English teacher! lol)
So... Here is my somewhat gruesome take. Sure, Adam/ Ryan is a psychopath. Lots of evidence for that. I wonder if the event that triggered this was the death of his friends. Whether he killed them or they died accidentally, he definitely felt responsible. So much so that he imagines a creature, gets rid of the bodies, and locks the event in his brain. Here is the creepy bit. There wasnsouch reference to food. He used to be fat. He didn't eat for weeks after the woods. He had trouble eating at boarding school. He goes long periods without food now. At one point , when talking about a certain suspect he says, " and what about the bodies? It's not like they were eaten!"
Maybe, in his terror and remorse over the deaths, he was so desperate to hide the bodies that he ate them. Maybe he became the monster. Maybe he consumed the thing he loved most.
Maybe, in his terror and remorse over the deaths, he was so desperate to hide the bodies that he ate them. Maybe he became the monster. Maybe he consumed the thing he loved most.
I think it will be her final book in the detective series, bringing it all full circle.
I was a big proponent of the puka theory, because I just didn’t see where he would have hidden the bodies, and I think there were just too many references to the supernatural, and not just from Rob’s point of view (Jonathan Devlin and his friends also heard it laughing in the woods) ... but of all the “Rob did it” theories I’ve read, this one is the most convincing. Must think on it more...
Growing up in the late 80's, there was plenty of urban legend and snatch-and-grab paranoia with kids that could easily be more plausible than Rob Ryan killing his friends (discussed in other threads for this book).
#BringBackRobRyan
#RobAndCassieTrueDetective
#OperationFindPeterAndJamie
#BringBackRobRyan
#RobAndCassieTrueDetective
#OperationFindPeterAndJamie
SO LATE to this, but my thoughts: I would only find this to make sense if he is such an unreliable narrator that (1) he is a psychopath, (2) Cassie didn't "pick it up" because HE was actually the psychopath in her history, and (3) all his feelingsy ramblings are just to make us think he has non-psychopath feelings. This seems like a stretch to me, but I guess is possible. I think he would have to be a psychopath because I know horrible horrible things happen in the world but I feel like it would take quite a dance of explanation for how a twelve year old was motivated to murder their friends, without any signs at school/home that would have lead him to be a suspect. I think accidentally killing his friends or letting them die seems more likely. Like maybe something happened that made him *feel* responsible for their deaths, sure this could be accidental murder through a fight, but I think it may be more likely that he chickened out or was too slow to help them get away from something/someone (his inability to act and his slowness are discussed in the book - also tangent, because he is slower I think at least one would get away if he tried to kill them).
From the slashes on the back of Adam's shirt, and the eerie laughter in the woods, and Adam/Rob's hallucinations of an animal running past, my guess is that Peter & Jamie were killed by a hyena.
I figured that the reason Rob sounded like he hesitant at first to divulge to the reader that he was a big kid at age 12 was that his size would incriminate him - i.e. he was tall and strong enough to be physically capable of killing the other two kids. So that would support your theory! He doesn't seem like psychopath though, so the motive would still be a puzzle ...
Great analysis Carolina! I also thought that Rob was a psychopath. His first statement that he was a liar was the foreshadowing clue. His behavior throughout the book reinforces this trait. He was the last person to see Peter and Jamie alive, and he was physically large. I believe that his motive was pain and anger at being the third wheel in the relationship among the friends, and that he was afraid they would leave him behind.
When Adam decided Rosalind made a fool of him, he said "hey I also fooled you, right? " to the readers.
I’m super late to the party myself. Here’s what I’m thinking. What if there really was some strange laughing animal in the woods in 1984? Let’s say it’s some weird nocturnal beast of a thing. Jamie, Peter and Rob avoided its lair, but it lived around the ruins where the kids played. They studied it all summer, maybe several summers. They realized that this thing was carnivorous, but also that it stored its food hanging upside down with the blood drained out. I definitely think Rob killed Peter and Jamie, for all of the very great reasons stated above, but not sure if it was accidental or on purpose. And then he fed them to the beast thing. He hung them and drained them (blood in his shoes), and barely escaped (4 scratches on his back). I think that what happened to the detectives and Rosalind happened to the 1984 detectives and Rob. They recreated the scene in the woods, Rob confesses or shows them; it is inadmissible because of some technicality. What I doesn’t make sense to me is if Cassie was suspicious of Rob after talking to the detective, I do not think she would have slept with him. Several times, as the book implies.
I still am not sure whether or not I like this book. If there is closure; if I am sure that Rob killed his friends, then I like it. Hence the internet searches and theories. I don’t know that I would read another Tana French book. I’m still ruminating.
I still am not sure whether or not I like this book. If there is closure; if I am sure that Rob killed his friends, then I like it. Hence the internet searches and theories. I don’t know that I would read another Tana French book. I’m still ruminating.
I just read it also and agree with you. His difficulties with
relationships would support that theory also (that he did it).
relationships would support that theory also (that he did it).
I like the theory of Rob hanging his friends and draining their bodies in his shoes. It explains the no blood part. And then feeding them to a carnivorous animal. But one question - where are the bones? Maybe the animal ate everything and left no remains? That doesn't seen plausible. Moreover the woods were searched thoroughly, if a carnivorous animal lived there it would have been their first suspicion. But the woods were considered fairly safe and there was no talk of children or animals getting killed. What I think might have happened is maybe the children were lured away by some stranger into a moving vehicle or someone's house. The murder or rape didn't take place in the woods itself. Maybe the locket was what they used to lure them away with some made up stories of pooka. That is why Rob remembers the pooka. Maybe it was a common rumour and that is why when the three boys who raped sandra were high on LSD(or whatever drugs) they imagined the pooka. Remember everyone's account was different. Someone heard laughter and someone heard flapping wings. And one person heard nothing at all but started shouting because others where shouting. The hallucinations could be because of the story popular amongst the kids. And using that story maybe showing the pooka pendent someone lured the kids to some mystery place outside the woods, some vehicle or truck where they were tied up. Maybe because he remembered the pooka's antler from the necklace he imagined deers running with them in his dream. Maybe the kids were playing near the river and so had their shoes off, but the kidnappers took the shoes with them because they wanted no evidence left behind. I am guessing some kind of struggle happened in the apartment or the truck or van. Hence no blood in the woods. I am guessing that if they were paedophile maybe they started with Jamie and Peter. Maybe because(I think there were two kidnappers that is why adam had the chance to run away) they were more attractive or some messed up shit like that, so it's the guilt which is eating him alive. Maybe he watched his friends get rapped or something worse(like disfigured or murdered) while he ran away. Maybe that is what messed him up. And the fact that even the kidnappers choose the other two kids and not him, (in some fucked up way he had abandonment issues) and leaving his own friends to death and not helping just running away silently left him full of guilt. Since the kidnappers knew one of the kids had escaped maybe they hurried and left the city. (I feel they were not locals) Maybe since the present time case was a case where a child was rapped in the same woods - this triggered him more than anything. And I pretty sure he was deluded about his relationship with Cassie. Cassie never actively showed any affection more than a friend to him. He had severe abandonment issues, due to which he imagined sam being the third wheel. When it was him all along. Remember cassie teasing sam about kissing him when they went to the pub together once. Maybe she was always into Sam. He felt special when Rosaline choose him over cassie. Again abandonment issue. Being liked more than someone else, this could be the reason he was so under Rosaline's spell. And there is no chance in hell he is a psychopath. A psychopath plays the role of either a victim or a hero. He was neither in the eyes of public. He was just pathetic in the end.
A psychopath would have banked on the fame of being the sole survivor of some gruesome murder and played the victim or hero who bravery survived card. He would have bragged about it everywhere since there is no way he could actually be convicted for murder anyways.
Okay so this might look painfully long. But I tried to tie all the ends.
A psychopath would have banked on the fame of being the sole survivor of some gruesome murder and played the victim or hero who bravery survived card. He would have bragged about it everywhere since there is no way he could actually be convicted for murder anyways.
Okay so this might look painfully long. But I tried to tie all the ends.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
