Cristina Rivera Garza’s The Taiga Syndrome was an eye-catching read, to say the least. It was adventurous and mysterious, while also difficult to understand what was going on at times. Simultaneously, the book also had some really resonating quotes that not only intensified the plot of the story, but also made me think—in more abstract terms—about life and our world.

To characterize both the beginning and ending of the story, each ends of the book were mysterious, in I had a strong yearning for more clarification. The very abstract quote written on the telegram, “’WHAT ARE WE LETTING IN WHEN WE SAY GOODBYE?’” was just the beginning of this growing curiosity. I questioned, “who exactly was this man, who hired the detective (our narrator)” and “who exactly is our narrator?” (p. 5). I just wanted to know more about the context—the place, people, and exact situation of the investigation—for my own sense of security. With the lack of this, I think I felt quite lost; I was questioning every advancement I made throughout the book, with a sense of excitement that came from the false hope that all my questions would be answered in a blockbuster ending.

This ‘blockbuster ending’ never occurred. However, the ending still gave me some chills. First of all, I wonder what exactly the ending of the story is. Does the book come to a proper closure? “At the foot of a volcano” (p. 119) is what left me an additional influx of questions. At first, I thought I was overthinking, but after going through the lecture, I think I was going towards the right direction with this book.

“This story that almost literally has no end is not only a fairy tale awry, but also a detective story whose poetics of failure point to the end of sovereignty without obviously establishing any alternatives. We can no longer even escape to the vanishing woods” (Rivera Garza Lecture, p. 1).

Like what Professor Jon stated, I also thought the book “almost literally has no end” (Rivera Garza Lecture, p. 1). In a literal sense, the quest to the Taiga forest the begun at the start of the book did come to an end, albeit a failed one. However, although I’m not sure exactly why, I keep getting a sense that there is something more left to the book; and Professor Jon’s quote—“Had his first wife really “died in an accident, years ago” as he is rather too quick to tell the narrator (15)? Is the detective missing the real case, right under her nose?”—added to this feeling (Rivera Garza Lecture, p.7).

Question: Personally, do you think the story came to a proper closure? Why do you think so? What makes a proper ‘ending’?