I really enjoyed this book and am continuing to think about it, but I'm realizing there isn't a lot of payoff for the framing narrative/unreliable narrator– the points where he's being self-serving or antagonistic are usually pretty clear during his first-person sections and the interviews he conducts, and looking for distortions or lies in his invented sections hasn't borne anything for me. It seems like Clark is using him as a justification for the more straightforward prose sections & as a good conduit for the themes (e.g. the reveal at the end that he obtained and published the girl's first-hand accounts illegally), but that overall his perspective doesn't influence the 'truth' of the story Clark is telling very much. Did anyone get a different conclusion from reading those prose sections more closely, or from the book generally?
by udibranch