Essay Questions

How does Rob use the mystery of the circumstances of the disappearance of his friends to transform himself into a figure of mythic proportions?

Rob is suffering survivor guilt even though he has no genuine idea what exact transpired on that fateful day. All he knows for sure is that his thinner, faster, more athletic friends are gone and he somehow—despite being fatter, slow and less endowed with natural athleticism—is still around. Surviving a devastating event just naturally stimulates guilt even when there is no legitimate reason for such an emotion; it is merely the act of surviving what others did not which brings it on. The guilt, in turn, usually stimulates what becomes for some a lifetime of trying to explain and justify and logically rationalize how—and especially why—things turned out as they did.

At one point, Rob briefly entertains thoughts that place his experience within an epic mythic scope: “Sometimes I think of the ancient gods who demanded that their sacrifices be fearless and without blemish.” Pondering the possibility that perhaps he was some pawn in a great chess game played by Fate is actually one of the most common fantasies that survivors used as a defense mechanism against over the often crushing weight of guilt.

What is the central psychological line of reasoning informing Cassie’s profile of the unknown killer?

As Cassie looks over the evidence file, she notices signs of hesitancy in the wound to her head caused by a rock. It appears to have clearly lacked any intent to cause death or even significant harm. Instead of taking the much easier route of strangling her, the killer gets unnecessarily complicated by pulling a plastic bag down over her head in order to suffocate her from behind. Cassie extrapolates from this decision that he didn’t have it in him to look at her face while strangling her and wished to put distance between himself and the act. Her conclusion is both psychologically simple and forensically complicated: he is a killer who heart really wasn’t in the act of murder.

What message does the story have to say about the existence of sociopaths in society?

Ultimately, the killer is revealed to be someone trustworthy enough to avoid suspicion and who easily succeeds at ingratiating into the lives of those conducting the investigation while at the same time proving to be malevolently manipulative and capable of easily distracting the investigation away from the truth. Essentially, the murderer can be accurately described as one type of person before the guilt becomes apparent and exactly the opposite in retrospect after that guilt is revealed. How is this possible? Because the guilty person is a textbook example of a sociopath. The message upon which the book ends—an ending doubtlessly frustrating to many readers—is horrifically chilling while steeped in brutal reality: even those supposedly trained to spot such monsters can be easily misled by sociopath’s peculiarly advanced talent at making themselves appear to a victim.